I

. . . . . .

. . ! . .

. . ' . .

. .

I .

I . .

' " , & . . .

. I . . . . I

. .

' . i . . . . . . '

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

~ .. I

C

P _ . . . .

. . . . . .

. .

I

. .

. .

I

. .

.. . I

. . . . . _

I

. ..: . . - .

. .

BEFORE THE FEDERAL';ELECTION COMMISSION

the Matter of 1 1

Club for Growth, Inc. 1 Club for Growth, Inc. PAC 1 Pat Toomey, in his official 1

capacity as Treasurer 1

MUR 5365

I .

I I

I

OPPOSITION OF THE CLUB FOR GROWTH, INC., CLUB FOR GROWTH INC. PAC, AND PAT TOOMEY, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TREASURER, TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S BRIEF

I

, - . . .

In ' I

I

I

. . 1 ' : ' , . : . . . .

I

APPENDIX . . .

I! I I, I. I. I I I I I

. ..

Carol A. Laham '

Thomas W. Kirby. . I ,

WILEY REIN & FIELDING LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., 20006 I

, (202) 7 19-7000

May 31,2005

e

APPENDIX A

1 I . !

I

I

I

. .

. .

. . . . _ I

. .

' I '

. . . . .....

. .

. I

. .

. . I

I . . . . . . . - - . . . . ' . .

s ..;' ,:: 1, 'j

. . . . . .

r- Only two entities are the subject of this action. First, Club for Growth; Inc.'is 'a.527.. 1 , . ' '

membership organization.. Second, 'Club for Growth, Inc: PAC is the Separate .Segr'egated.Fund. .

ofthe Club.for Growth, Inc. Citizens Club for Gr9wth.k a bank account ofthe:.-C.lub for Growth.. . . .

Citizens Club'has consisted only of personal. funds from individuals. It does' not .have .a separate' "

I

. . . . . . . . I . .

. . . . . . . . I . : . . .

. _

....

' legal existence. *I.. I..

. . '. .I' . .

The remaining entities have no conn&~on to this matter. I Specifically, Club'for Growthhet 'is an unincorporated 527 associatiqdorganization and :is controlled direct1y.by:its

as a clearinghouse for state organizations .that advocate pro-growth policies, for'statemd local . ' : .

have either formally or informally licensed 'the Club for. Growth nake through: Club for Growth

. .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

' members. Club for Growth.net is not a party to this . . action;

Club for Growth State'Action, Inc. is a 501 (c)(4) organization meant..io,'serve primarily .

. . .

governments. The so-called Club for Growth State Affiliates 'are all independent entities that I

State Action and the state organizations havejlifferent structures and tax status depending on 'state laws.

. . . '

. I

. . . . . . . . . .

I

. . . . . . . .

' I

. . . .

I . . . . .

Club for Growth State Action and Club'for Gro.wth.net have informally licensed the Club. . :I for Growth name. . .

Club for Growth Advocacy may not still exist and in any event, The Club for Growth has no control over Club for Growth Advocacy. Club for Growth Advocacy was initially created as a 501 (c)(4). The Club for Growth' believes that Club for Growth Advocacy either has changed its name to the Free Enterprise Fund or is doing business under that name. To the Club's knowledge, the Free Enterprise Fund shares no common directors with the Club for Growth or Club for Growth State Action and it does not have authorization to use the Club for Growth name.

I i !

I

. - . . . .

. .

. I

I . i

I

I

I

I

APPENDIX B

::(CD-ROM rr REMOVED FROM FILE) '

APPENDIX C (REMOVED FROM FILE)

APPENDIX D

I I

I--

. . *I. . .

. .

.. .

I

. .

I

VARIOUS PRESS APPEARANCES, SPEECHES, AND POLICY MEETINGS BY STEPHEN ’MOORE FROM 2002 THROUGH

2004

I

VARIOUS PRESS APPEARANCES BY DAVID KEATING‘FROM L? v

. . 2001THROUGH2005 , .

I

I

I I

I I I

I i. I

. .

4

- .

I*UC # J 1'

VARIOUS PRESS APPEAFWWCES, SPEECHES, AND. POLICY MEETINGS BY STEPHEN MOORE FROM 2002 THROUGH 2004'

I I . .

. . . . April 2002

1 Oth lgth KSFO Radio interview 25th KCNN radio show

2gth Call wl Latin Opinions

30th

Ken Bagwell Show Radio interview,

'

KRLA radio interview wl Larry Moreno

Dinner wl Heritage Foundation entire day on Wall Street 'Review

.' I . .

\.

I j ' '.

. .

\ I

. . 1 . ' .

. ' ! . . . .

. . 1

Mav 2002

1st. .

2nd . 3rd

7th

6 th

gth

1 4th' 21S' 22nd 2gth

KSFO radio interview- Lee Rogers Dinner Speech Cat0 and Chuck Harder Radio Show I

Greg Garrison Radio Show LA Times Interview with Sally Hooks Jason Lewis Show KSTP Taylor Smith and American Skandia Speech Birmingham, AL Florida - American Skandia Policy Speech AM American Skandia Jackson h4ississippi Policy Speech Dinner Washington Hilton Ball room to honor Milton Friedman Small Business Conference at Hay Adams Hotel 4 hours Saddlebrook, NJ Am. Skandia Policy Speech Wichita, KS Skandia Policy Speech KSFO Lee Rogers Radio Show SF, CA

. ..

. .

. .

- ..

June 2002

7th Bloomberg News

1 3 th Press conference 2 1 st

24th 25th 26th

CNN taping at office

Young America's Foundation American Association of Small property Owners Georgia Trucking Association economic policy speech San Francisco Economic meetings Milton Friedman Milton Friedman and Dr. Arthur Laffer meeting

I ' I

These lists are not complete, but include all'of the information that the Club could ascertain at this I

time.

1 I . .

. .. .. .. , I

. . . .

5 : ! . . . .

. . . . r- Julv2002 ' . . : .

New Orleans and Biloxi, MS Am. Skandia economic conferences. '.:..

. . :. .. .

-'-26th . . ' . :'. ' 1 ' '

, . , . '

I . . .. - I

. . . . . ' . . .

. . . I

_ . . . _ . . . .

. .

. .

August 2002

6'h .

13th ' 1 8th 26th 27th

. 28th 3 Oth

1 2th KXEM Radio interview Phoenix:& . ' .

Christian Science Monitor

American Conservative Union Boot camp .Reuters interview w John Whitesicle Tax project w/ Williams m'd Jenson

KSFO Radio Lee Rogers show SF, CA

NY- Bill Moyer TV Show . .

O'Reilly Factor .. . '

. .. .

. . .

. ..

I

. .

I

. . - .

. . '

. . . .

, . . . . 1' ' , j .

SeDtember 2002

16th CNN taping 1 gth Laffer Conference

120'~ Laffer Conference 2Sth American Conservative Union speech 30th Cat0 Luncheon

Pc. r . .

I . I

I .

. . I I November 2002 . -

I I 1. I

4'h 7th gth gth 1 oth 1 lth 13th 1 6th

. 18'h

23'd 22nd

23rd

Hartford CT evening speech American Skandia KFIV Radio Interview American Skandia Speech Oklahoma City, OK Am. Skandia Wichita, KS speech KSFO radio interview Economic Forum participant Steve Wampler Radio Show Conference call with Bank of NY Indiana American Skandia speaking tour Leadership Institute speech . NY American Skandia KSOV radio interview I

December 2002

I I

loth Greg Ganison Radio Show 1 3th NPR TV show 3 1 St Brit Hume Special Report

I -1 '

' _ : * . . . .

. .

7th , I . , . . . KVIC Radio CNBC interview Inside Politics Lou Dobbs Money Line Radio America _.

MD Tax Payers ,Association. NPR USA Radio

I

. . ' 0 0 . '

I' : : _ . .

'. 9 . I . . .

Radio Wisconsin ,.. . , Mth CNBC ' . ' . I

20th New York . .

. .

CNN Radio' '$ '

February 2003 . .

i '? 6 I .. . .

, 5th KSFORadio. .

ptb . dth Wisconsin

I

. . . . .

r I I.

Public Policy Forum Goldwater Institute I ,

KSFO Radio CNN Financial News Coalition on Urban Renewal- Stan Parker Meeting with Wayne Gable-Schwab' WJET Radio interview PA' Laffer-Moore conference call Radio interview (evening) Meeting with Secretary John Snow Cat0 Con€erence in FL

,

7th 1 lth 1 2 ~

' 13'h 1 4th

. 18'h. . .

1 gth :,, ' 26th

' 2gth I 1

I I I I

i

March 2003

, 4th 10th 1 3th 1 4th 1 8th

27Ih 2Oth

WNTK Radio interview New York School Choice meeting Laffer Conference- all day Laffer Conference - all day Capitol Hill testifying Radio interview KSFO radio interview KSEV radio interview Wisc. Public Radio interview

I I

I

3 Oth I .

* May 2003

1 st Gilder Policy Dinner

I

I I I . '

[,I 7

I ':

PI

E I I. I 1. I I I I I ' I

I I

r.

9th !

' .12'h 22nd

' 27fh 28'h

29th.'

' 30th

I I . !

' _ _ 4):; .. ._

. . : : . OceanaireRestaurant . ' . '

TV interview . . , . . .

Secretary Snow meeting : ' ' I

CNN taping

KSFO Lee Rogers * * V , _ '

I . .

Radio Shows. 3 b*,.i*.

'. #I'

KSlV Radio' II

. .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . .

I

. . . I

. '. . . . . . . . . .

Greg Garrison Show I

ABC News interview Cat0 luncheon

June 2003

1 Oth 1 6th

17th 23rd ACLU luncheon 2Sth Hearing on the Hill ,26" Heritage Dinner 27th

July 2003

2nd KSFO Radio 1 Oth O'Reilly Factor 23rd Evening Radio Show 3 1 st CNN Live

Au eu st 2003

2"d CATO

3d Hill News Paper Interview

1 1 th CATO event lPh CATO event 1 8th Laffer Conference 1 gth Laffer Conference 23rd 24'h 2Sth Yale University - Speech 2gth Louisville, KY - Speech 30th Nashville, TN - Speech

Prop 13 Silver Anniversary Dinner Tallahassee FL. w/ Grover Norquist Policy meeting NC meeting and radio show

Radio Show "As it is" w/ Mike Foudy

Wall Street Journal Radio interview

Fox News cable

Memphis, TN American Skandia event Jackson, MS American Skandia event

I

. .

. . . . . .

I .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. . .

. . . . -. .

I

. .

8 . I

.. . . . '

(*irk :IJ 1' . .

. . October 2003

1". TN and KY American Skiinilia events .; ,

' January 2004:

6th.

13th .

, . 25'h 26'h

29th

' . . 3 0 t h

. .

I

KSFO radio interview Chicago Times Interview Crossfire KCNN Radio interview Luncheon wl joint economic conference WITT Radio interview CBS News Don Crow Show Press Conference Radio show taping our office Kudlow and Kramer Show Speech in Palm Springs, CA Fox and Friends NPR Interview CNBC news Heritage Speech Mike Reams Radio Show Wall Street Review KVIF Radio

February 2004

!, 2"d NPR KSFO Wells Fargo Speech

3rd WPT Radio , Sth Heritage Dinner loth Dennis Miller taping lgth to 22"d Palm Beach Economic Retreat 2Sth W W Radio Tampa

. .

. , . I

March 2004

Sth 8th KTRS St Louis IOth 1 1 th

12'h Radio Show 1 6th Press Conference

CA for the Bill Maher Show

NY dinner on Social Security Harvard Study Group

Gilder Policy Dinner

. . . ! . .

I n .

: . ' . .

. . . .

. . 1

. .

. . . . . . .. . .

I I

i

i 8

1

I . . . .

I . '

pa r :

I

' ' *:, . . I. .

! .' . . . . . . . .

. . . I

. _ . . . -

. . I

I

17'h 1 8'h i Laffer C.onference , I gth Laffer Conference. 22"d Meeting with Secretary Evans . : I' .. ..

CA- tape the Dennis Miller Show ': .

, .

I . .

23'd' CQ interview David Miller C. I I . , ,I' 4'. , '

3 1" New ,York Times

April 2'004 I

. . . .

. , . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . -

, . . . , I . .

. . .

. I , . . .

. . , . _

. _ . .

1 st

13'h New York event during day ' ..

.Small Business me,eting w/ Jack Wynn Willard . .

Chuck Harder' Radio Show .

, . .

. . . . .

. .

. .. . . . .

I

. . Conservative union Dinner . , , , . .

. .

. . . ,

. . .. . . , I :

I .

. 16'h Texas- death tax policy meetings NPR

lgth Cox Radio 20th NPRradio , . _ . .

' I

I . ' . .

. . . ! I

. . . . . . , 2 lS ' BBC .

Evening radio show Jack.Wynn meeting- small business . .

I .

. ' 77th

May 2004

loth Meeting with Secretary Snow 1 gth Leadership Institute Speech

Ronald Reagan Dinner 20'~ CATO conference 24'h NPRradio

June 2004

. .

4'h 7'h 8'h NY- Economic Summit gth Meeting on Health Care

CNN Dinner meeting Market Place public Radio interview Time Wamer Executive meeting Round Table w/ Atlantic Monthly Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs Free Market Think Tank

Wheaton College Economic Policy Speech Meeting with Dick DeVoss on School Choice

1 5'h

16'h 24'h

12'h Michael Medved Radio Show 1 4th Empower America Social Security event

. .

. . . . . . , - . .

. . .. . . . I

. .

. .

I .

1.i.h hJ 1' '

' ' 16th. . Heritage luncheon .meeting re: the Budget I ' . '

I

I

. .

igth 20"

Press Conference on social Security Press Conference on social -Security \ '

I. I. I I" ;'

. . . . I \ . August 2004 :

3rd 41h

1 lth

5th. . .

61h .

23d 3 is'

American Skandia meetings in Denver Jackson'Hole mektings . .

Jackson Hole Jackson Hole. Radio show with Blanquita ,.* . Cullen NRA Radio New Yorker Magazine interview , NPRShow' .

Economic. Forum

:

. .

I

. . Sep.tember 2004 .

Sth CNN' w/ Gene Sperling . gth Tallahassee FL meeting w/ Governor Bush , '

loth 1 71h Bloomberg News

. ..

Meeting w/ James Madison Institute F . . .

I ' . ' ' October 2004

- . Sth . , Dennis Miller Show Taping

. 6th . 'KIONRadioShow 12th Radio interview

I. I.. I I

19" 20'h 21S'

251h 2 61h 27th

. . . I I . '

. .

I

.. .

NCA radio CNN BBC Show live Brian Lehr Show Hot Talk Radio TV KION Radio Show Radio interview Union College for Policy Speech Drug Speech New York for Press Release Jim Bohannan Radio Show Memphis TN Financial Resource Forum KSFO Radio

I November 2004

I *

-. .

1" 8 th

Meeting with Dr. Mankiew, council of economic advisors. Las Vegas, NV Pacific Research Breakfast

I

I

I . . I

I . .

! .

. . . . . . .

I I . .. . . -

q '. ' I'

New Times Conference Speech . . ' FFranchi se : I .. ,

c- . .

I

I

I

December 2004

1 Oth' Texas Public -Policy Foundation. I

. . . . . . .

. . . .

I

. . . .

.. .

. .

I

. .

I

I

I

I I 1 , c I.

i; I t I I I I I I I I

I . (L ': ' . '

. . . .

(*i&h :t.)

VARIOUS PRESS APPEARANCES BY DAVID KEATING FROM 2001'. . THROUGH 2005

Januarv' 2001

5th Fox Morning News .re: Congress and the economy a

February 2001

gth . Fox News re: .Tax cuts/economy .

22nd

March 2001 I

3'd Paul Curtain Radio America network news ...

14th: MSNBC re: T-ax cuts'

April 2001 . ..

12th CNN re: Tax cuts 25th MSNBCre: Tax cuts I ,

June 2001 .

' , . I

I . I ., . . I

. . . 1 ,.

. . . . .

. .

1". ' . :. . : . ' # # . . ' I

\, '.

: , I \ . '

. . .

. . . .

" I . . . . . .

WI Public Radio re: Tax;Cuts

. . .

. .

. I

I I

2 1 st WPTT Pittsburgh, PA re: economy

August 2001

- . 30th MSNBC re: Tax cuts and budget surplus

January 2002

. 2gth CNBC What Bush should do on the economy -- debate

April 2002

1 2th Bloomberg radio

May 2002 . I I

gth Fox News with Neal Cavuto re: Economy

June 2002

2Oth CNBC . .

. .

I 1 . !

I . .

I

I

. .

. -

I I .. .. .

. .

*., .

. . ' ! :.

. . . .

- . . . . -- August.2002'

. . : I .. . 1 . . .8th WWUH CT Soapbox

- . . . . -- August.2002'

. . : I .. . 1 . . .8th WWUH CT Soapbox . .

. . , .

. ! . . . ABC-TV News Terry Moran' Interview ' ....

. . . . . I . .

.. . . .

b-*yia.

I , . . I . .

#I'

. .

October 2002 cv,:

. . I

. :. . . . .

I ' . .

8'h .' CBS Marketwatch TV .

. . . '. . . .

. .

' January 2003 . .

. .

9'h

April 2003

'WSMB New Orleans Ed Clancy Show: Is the tax cut fiscally responsible . ..: ' . .

I

. _ e ' .

... . , I

i . ' 22"d WOR W C re: Tax cuts . . .

. !i

. . May 2003

,15" .23rd

n

WWLZ Elmira, NY The Jon Antis 'Show: Tax cuts, and the Kennedy ad campaign MSNBC Pat Buchanan & Bill Press re: Tax cuts - ~

Fox News re: Tax cuts -

, . .

0

October 2003 . .

30th CNN

February 2004

gth 27th CNN

Fox News Channel Fox and Friends re: Fiscal debate

March 2004

1 7th WI Public Radio Conversations with Kathleen Dunn

June 2004

CNN re: Economy

March 2005

7th Radio America Network news gth gth

WDUN radio GA re: Social Security WKBV radio re: Social Security

. .

. I

. .. . I

. .

- 3

I

APPENDIX E

I

. . ! . ' _ .

I I

. . . . '

I--

I _..

I :. .. .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. I

. .. . . . .

. . . . .

. .

;, ' . ' . ' , . : : .

, _

. . . . .' . . ' . ' . .

. .

' , . . . .

I .. -

.. -

VARIOUS POLICY WRITINGS FROM 2000 THROUGH 2004 I ,I' 4'. , '

1(

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

_ . . . I

I

. . I . I

-. . . .

'. . . ' I

. . . .

. .

. . I

. I

" .

. . .

I

I:

! . .

.. .

I !.

I . . : '

* . SECTION: 0PINlON;Pg. Gy2 . . I LENGTH: 686 words

' , * - 4 M u t - n to .Full ..

.. .

LexisNexislTM Academic ,*ilk :,..I 1'

Copyright 2003 .The San Diego Union-Tribune I '

The San Diego Union-Tribune . \ . . . L

. . . .

. .

. .

I . .

. .

' ,

' , \ ' .

March 30,,2003, Sunday - I

. 8 I .

. . ,.,g HEADLINE: Bush tax plan will pay dividends ,_..

. . I

. . ' I .

BYLINE: Stephen Moore; Moore is a senior fellow at the Cat0 Institute and president of the Club for Growth.

E ,BODY: & News commentators around the country are celebrating the vote in the United States Senate earlier this week to slice

in half the size of President Bush's bold tax cut plan. A New York Times editorial trumpets the vote as a triumph for E -3 "fiscal sanity in the Senate." CNN (the Clinton News Network) could hardly contain its glee when it described the pa action in Congress as "a devastating setback for the president's taxcutting agenda."

I. I I I I I I I I I

It's not surprising that the liberal-biased media applauded the no vote on the tax plan. The folks at the indispensable Media Research Center find that "news" items on Bush's $725 billion tax relief plan have been running "at least 4 to 1'' against the proposal. The media are not serving as a neutral judge of the Bush tax plan; they are serving as its executioner.

But President Bush's tax cut is not dead -- nor should it be. With every passing day there are further flashing signs that the limping economy desperately needs this tax cut stimulant. With consumer confidence recording its fourth straight month of negativity, the stock market bears still growling with discontent, and the manufacturing sector still bleeding jobs, a @x cut stimulus would provide the U.S. economy with the kind of adrenaline rush that a 3 point shot does in the wdhg minutes of a tied NCAA basketball game during March Madness. Tax cuts clear away barriers to new job creation and new business investment. This economic growth strategy worked for John F. Kennedy in the 1960s; it worked.for Reagan in the 1980s; and it will work again for Bush now.

. .

50 why the temporary setback in the Senate? George Voinovich of Ohio, one of the three Senate Republicans M o bucked'his own party on the tax vote, said that taxes should not be cut during a time of war. Nonsense. The best way to assure victory in this war against terrorism is to stoke the fires of America's powerful engine of economic growth so that it's running again on all cylinders. This is precisely the strategy that Reagan used to win the Cold War. We triumphed against the Soviet Union thanks to a combination of vast military and economic superiority. The goal of the $errorists is todisable the U.S. economy. Pro-growth tax cuts are a powerful defense mechanism to foil this strategy.

The top Senate Democrat, Tom Daschle, complained this week that the Bush plan will blow a grenade-sized hole in the budget deficit. Deficit spending is indeed a big problem in Washington these days. But it is the absence of speedy

imbalance. Without American small businesses making profits and with unemployed workers unable to find decent paying jobs, how in the world does Daschle think'that Americans will generate the tax revenues to balance .

'

economic growth (as we grew accustomed to in the 1980s and 1990s) that has thrown the budget into severe

expenditures and receipts? . .

I

, , . .. '

Growth and expenditure restraint are the keys to eliminating red ink on Capitol Hill. I f president 3ush's tax plm increases economicgrowth by just 1 percentage point a year and if federal expenses are cutback to the rate of inflation,

I

8

. .

. .

I I

I

I

. .

! : . .

we will have a balanced budget by the yew-2006, :and, we will even have a $l:OO biliion surplus. ,Even in Washington

The crown jewel o,f the president's tax plan is the .elimination of the dividend tax on'owners of stock The'ec'onomics firm Kudlow and Co,. estimates that just that one provision would increase stock values immediately by 5.percent to 15 percent: That boost .to the stock market would hcrease the'net .worth of American families by between $500 billion and $1 trillion. The Heritage Foundation economic forecasting model says that the president's taxplan creates three ,

The White House said again this week that the president 411 not compromise on his tax plan'if thealternative means "

'.

. I . .

. .. ' I . .._._.... ,

. I

. . I . . that's a lot ofqoney. . .

I I times as many new jobs as the Senate Democratic ahemagve.

, . , . : : . . .

r-

. '

I

. . ' . . a 4',.' . .

. . . - I , 'more jobs lost and less economic growth than America is'capable of achievingihd that is.exactly, what the . . ... - . . .

. alternative means. Fight on Mr..President. Your critics don't have.a leg 'to'stand on. . , . . .

'. . . . . .

.. . I

. . CQ LOAD-DATE: ~ p r i i i; zoo3

. . . _ . . . ' I

. . I

I ,

. . I I

. .I",!. , . . .

r: i . . .

4

. ? i

. . . . P*

. . ' . . 4 .

i I " ' 1

I I I I I

. .

_... . .

. . . ,.' ..

. .

I .:

I . SECTION: 0PNION;Pg. B-7

. . I LENGTH:,844 words

+Return to Full : 1

, LexisNexisTM Academic (*;ah :lJ r

I .

Copyright 2002 The San Diego Union-Tribune' The San Diego Union-.Tribune \. I

July 17,2002, Wednesday *

' . I 1. 1

. . . .

HEADLINE: Securing the homeland; More bwaucracy solves nothing , .

. . . . . .

. .

#j BYLINE: Stephen Moore; Moore is president of the Club for Growth, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank 'J promoting smaller government and lower taxes. L t-4

George W. Bush should rethink his proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Once upon a time -- F ;> as recently as 1995 -- Republicans wanted to reduce the size of the Cabinet, not add to it.,If a Homeland Security hI department is truly necessary, the Commerce Department or HUD must be closed down to make room €or it. If the r net increase in Cabinet departments.

Republicans won't shut down agencies that long ago outlived their usefulness, they should at least adopt a policy of no

I. I I I I I I I I I

Creating this new department is likely to be highly expensive (at least $4 billion for just reorganization costs), and it may very well create more, not less bureaucratic overlap and redundancy in Washington. Before Congress signs off on President Bush's proposal to create another new agency, 'we should consider the inglorious history of new Cabinet departments.

Let's start &om the beginning. When the U.S. government was first founded there were just three Cabinet agencies: a Departpent of War, a State Department and a Department of the Treasury. In those founding years of our nation, all domes& government activities, outside of delivering letters, were handled by the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department's first entire budget to deal with all civilian concerns was less than $1 million. Congress nbw spends that roughly every five -seconds.

. .

-. .

Today, we h'ave 1.5 Cabinet agencies -- and 13 of them deal with domestic social welfare issues. Jimmy Carter created two Cabinet agencies: Energy and Education. The education and energy crises deepened after their creation. Both should be terminated. In ,1995, the newly elected Republican Congress was going to get rid of three Cabinet departments, Energy, Education and Commerce, but all of them still remain.

The point, of course, is that it would be hard to argue that creating Cabinet agencies solves national problems and in most cases, as with energy and education poIicy and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, they have made matters worse.

Now, there are strong arguments for creating a Department of Homeland Security. Not the least among these is that by consolidating all border enforcement, intelligence gathering and national security concerns under one roof, there should be a lot less duplication of effort and a lot Iess of the bureaucracy working at cross purposes -- which happens a lot in our $2.2 trillion government. Washington has more than 50 job training programs, more than 60 low-income housing assistance programs, and some 25 programs for vocational training. Washington invented the Department of Redundancy Department. SO there is value in letting Gov. Tom Ridge house all these functions under his direct control.

I

I

e

I

. .

,

. .

. .

I

I

. I

. . I i . i

I ' :

1 .

' . 1 ' .

. . . . . - . . I . ; There are'a npmber .of problems with the proposal, however; First, and most importantly, we already have a ' ' . I , .

I

.

I . .. i :

. - Department of'Homeland Security, and it is called the Defens? Department, After ail, if the Defense Department, which spends some $350 billion a year -- or, more than twice what any other nation spends 'on:military conce'ms-- .

.. isn't

The very reason we had a Sept. 1 1 attack was that our'$2.2 .trillion government wasn't doing the,one thing it is

I .

.i

. I

spending that money on protecting the homeland, what is it spending these f h d s on? .

on .troops in Korea, troops in the Middle East, troops in &$rope, and even Afiica. ' '

, . . . . . . . . .

. . .. . . ' I

I supposed to do, which is to keep us safe from foreignlharm. Our Defense Department spends tens'of biliions of dollars .

?

I The fact that the Pentagon doesn't have the money or resohces .to keep our borders secure and to do the intelligence

. . . . . . . . i

' . I. '

. ' ; . . . . *

. .

I

I AIDS funding for Africa.

gathering to keep us safe is lunacy. Foreign entanglements have gotten us so unfocused on the real priorities of national security that life and death issues like protection fkom terrorists on the home soil is an afterthought for the Pentagon. Meanwhile, we do have money for "peacekeeping operations" in Somalia, IMF funding for Argentina and

'

I

~TJ The crisis is here, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Hastert, not overseas.

the Department of Homeland Security. That will get our priorities realigned with the new realities of the natio qr A better solution than creating a new Department of Homeland Security would belto rename the Defense Dep

1 . G-" r F'cl

securityecrises of this post-Cold War world. All expenditures by this new department should be judged on the basis of

. .

. . . . . . .

- 1 .

b whether they enhance our security here at home. Under this plan, we save tens of billions of dollars, rather than spend another $4 bjllion to $5 billion.

President Bush must recognize that the proliferation of Cabinet agencies over the last 50 years has not solved a single problem in America. And it certainly no1 helped in any way to increase homeland security. Just the opposite is true. I The bureaucratization of government in Washington has weakened and kained the federal government's ability to use its resources effectively.

I .

I P

I As Texas Senator Phil Gramm has said many times before: "A government that tries tol'do everything, ends up'doing nothing well." , . .

. . I. LOAD-DATE: July 19,2002

I. . ' 8 ,

. .

Document Links: Start of Document SECTION:

. LENGTH: HEADLINE: . BYLINE: - BODY: LOAD-DATE:

. .

. "

. .

Copyright 2003 The Deseret News Publishing Co. Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)

'

. . . July 12,2003, Saturday

SECTION: OPINION; pg. AI i

LENGTH: 743 words ,.. . r

HEADLINE: Re-regulation of power markets would ,be a mistake

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore Scripps Howard News Service

I

. . .

' BODY:

.. . _

: , . ' I .

Deregulation has been one of the great proconsumer public policy success stones over the past quarter-century.

Airline deregulation in the late 1970s ushered in the modern era of widely affordable discount airline travel, with ticket prices falling by almost half. Similarly, with a stroke of a pen in January 1981 I President Ronald Reagan ended the energy crisis and the gasoline lines of the 1970s. As a consequence of ending price controls for oil, the inflation-adjusted price to fill up your gas tank is far lower today than then.

But we've learned a more painful lesson about regulatory change in recent times, too. When Congress or state lawmakers botch the plan, things can go catastrophically wrong.

That's precisely what happened in California during the recent electricity brownouts. During the worst stage of the electric power shortage, California homeowners and businesses had to ration their electricity use, dim the lights and tum off their air conditioners. A basic service that Americans take completely for granted -- the cheap and uninterrupted access to electric power for light, for heat, for running our computers, powering our hair dryers and dishwashers - was suddenly a scarce commodity. Electric utility prices skyrocketed because of a tragically flawed electric power restructuring plan that was actually supposed to save California homeowners money. Oops.

Later this month Congress will vote on a new electricity re-regulation scheme that could do for the nation what Sacramento legislators did to. California. Uncle Sam's energy regulators want to impose vast new federal control over state and local electric utilities.

The plan aims to lower prices and expand efficiency of the national electricity market by requiring private powergenerating companies across the couhtry to come under the authority of newly created mega-Regional Transmission Organizations.

Washington regulators who contrived this new federal power grab - no pun intended - falsely label their plan a form of pdcompetition deregulation. But if this is deregulation, why does the plan require 603 pages of new rules? Why does it cost $750 million to implement? Why does the flow chart of this organizational redesign make the 1993 Hillary Clinton socialized medicine plan seem sane and comprehensible by comparison? ,

The new scheme also appears to create'clearly definable winners and losers - and it should be no surprise that the winners am the pdliticalfy powerful states. Places like New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado are expected to see utility prices rise under this beggar-thy-neighbor scheme, while more of their power gets exported to the major power-using centers like California, New York and Chicago.

One wonders what exactly is the policy problem here that Congress is trying to solve. For years and yea?, electricity prices have been falling in the United States. The Department of Energy recently conceded: "The electric power industry has generally been marked by substantial . growth in capacity and generation and dramatic declines in price.* A Cato Institute report finds that the average household pays less than one-third in wage-adjusted.prices for electricity today than the equivalent, household did in 1950.

Supporters of the new plan to essentially federalize electricity pricing and transmission policy hope that it will reduce utility costs by $1 billion annually. But Thomas Lenard, the respected energy analyst at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, notes that the overall production capacity of electricity could easily fall under this new plan because of reduced investment in building new power plants.

That would mean higher, not lower utility .prices. Lenard's warning is worth repeating and demands the upright attention of Congress: "If this regulatory plan is adopted by Congress, the California electricity mistake will be repeated at the federal level, and the next electricity crisis may affect the entire nation."

That is why Congress should rejek the new federal re-regulation of electricity markets. Yes, the nation's electricity markets could be made .more efficient through greater forces .of competition in local markets. But deregulation means that the federal regulatory apparatus is dismantled, not empowered. As Reagan proved, truederegulation doesn't require 600 pages of new law; it just requires a stroke of the pen.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

I I . .

I

. I

. .. I

_ .

I LOAD-DATE: July 12,2003 I

I

c-

I . I I I ' L

I

ill! ii

CoDyriaht 0 2005 LexiiNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of thisservice is governed by:Terms 8 Conditions

. , . . . ..__...-

P . Please review them. . ' . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . ' I

I . . .. . . . . . ,

. . 1

. . I . .

. . 4 , . . _

CI.ll.

'. .I' r ' l ' , , . .

I

. . -. .

. . . .

. . . .

.' . . . . .

I

a ' .

... . , . I . . .

I . . I . ' . . I

I

I'

. .

. . . .

1 I I t

t" -2

F

a

I I I I I I I I I I

I I

c-

1 :, ..

SECTION NEWS; .Pg. 20A

LENGTH: 4 14 words

m. .

. . I

. . .. - . dteturn to Full. ' ,

LexisNexisrM ,Academic 2 : :.

Copyright 2003 Gannett 'Company; Inc. ' USATODAY I .. .

September 16,20.03, Tpesday, FINAL 'EDITION ' .I

I I . .

' ' I

. .

. , . .

. .

. . . . I

P I , , , ' ': I

-. . . . . .

'. .

HEADLINE: Tax c.uts are not to' blame .

BYLINE: Stephen Moore

BODY: Today's, debate: Government borrowing

. .

... . ,

I I . '

I

I

Opposing view: Outrageous deficits are result of Congress' out-of-control spending.

The pronouncement that the federal deficit may exceed more than $50.0' billion next year -- a figure greater than the entire gross domestic product of most nations: -- has American taxpayers justifiably infuriated. Running up debt obligations like th is on future generations is a form of congressional child, abuse. Om children and grandchildren wi71 pay a hefty financial price for our current financial recklessness. They may not soon forgive us.

I

But the binge in debt spending is not a result of President Bush's tax cuts. At most, only about 25% of the deficits are a result of the tax cuts. Moreover, if the Bush tax cuts generate a stronger stock market, higher business profits and more jobs, the faster levels of economic growth will be a major factor in helping generate more tax revenues to bring the deficit down.

So far so good on this score: Since the president's capital gains and dividend tax cuts were enacted in May, the resulting stock market rally has increased Americans' wealth by more than $ 1 trillion, according to the kkerican Shareholders Association.

The root of the huge deficits has been an inability of Congress and the White House to control their spending appetite. In the past three years, the federal budget has grown more than one-half trillion dollars. Some of this is attributable to justifiable expenses to fight the wm on terrorism. But non-terrorism-related federal expenditures are now growing at a faster pace than at any time since Lyndon Johnson was president.

The most vital step in restraining the tidal wave of red ink that has engulfed Washington is to just say "no" to the unconscionable $450 billion prescription drug bill for senior citizens. If .allowed to pass Co-s, it will add $ 3 trillion to the national debt during the next 60 years. Since roughly 75% of seniors already have private drug benefits, why pile huge new debts on the backs of our children? This is like pouring gasoline onto a burning home.

.

1

. I

. . 1

t

I

. 1

I I I I I

I i

. i

' . . . - ! ' '

Ronald Reagan once said that "to compare Congress to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors." That has never been more true than today. We won't rebalance our federal budget until the politicians come to grips with their

.

bddiction to' overspending.

I I ' I

I

. I. '. '

' I . '

*** , ' , \ ' '.

. .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth, which advocates tax cuts and limited I

. . . . I LOAD-DATE: September 16,2003 '

.t . . '

m

. .. I

I ' .. .

I

I

I . . , I . , .

I

I

I I ' .. I' I LexisNexisTM.'Academ ic

': ' I. . ,

I . . . .

. . :.' '. c- . .

. . . . . . I . .. . . . ' .

Copyright 2003 Gannett Company, lnc.

' April 24,2003,*Thur@ay,,FINAL EDlTION .

. .

. .

. .

USA TODAY ..._

, ' . . '

"l', , ' ': I

. .

I SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A , .

, LENGTH: 393 words

1 1QQ HEADLINE: Focuson growth, not deficit :

I m

. .

. .

. . .

. . . .

_. . '0 UJ BYLINE: Stephen Moore

2 BODY:

R;r , '

h a

p4 Opposing view: Economy needs the stimulus Bush's tax-cut plan would provide.

... . , ,

I ,

. . . .

' I

! . ' V Today's ,debate: Tax cuts

. .

. ! I . .

. .

. . I c3

I . .

The biggest problem with the U.Sl economy today is not, our budget deficit, but,our growth deficit. I

_ I . . ! . .

. . . .

. I .

. . 9 . ' .

. . . . . -. , . . .

I

I . .

.

I

We have lost 2 million jobs in the past two years, and the economic-groivth rate has fallen by half from the prosperous pace of the 1980s and '90s.

r

Until we get the growth-deficit problem fixed, the budget cannot be balanced. If we can increase the economic growth rate by just one percentage point a year, the federal government will collect $1.5 trillion more taxes during the next decade simply by putting America back to work.

That is why President Bush's economic-stimulus tax cut is crucial to our economy. Its beneficiaries will be workers, investors, states and cities -- all of which are front-line victims of anemic economic-growth rates.

, I

The jewel of the president's tax plan is the proposal to eliminate the double tax on stock dividends.

Currently, dividends are taxed as corporate income to businesses that pay them, and then as personal income to individual shareholders receiving the dividends'. This can result in tax rates on dividends as high as 70Y0. These punitive tax rates reduce stock vdues, capital investment and savings. And, of course, it is fundamentally unfair to tax the same income twice.

Many economists believe that by eliminating the double taxation of dividends, stock values' will rise by as much as 10% immediately. This is very good news for the 85 million Americans who own stock but have seen their retirement incomes disappear during this bear market. .

. ..

r

I

I

' I " I

' . ; I . .

I '

. . , . , .

,,The problem of deficit spending should be controlled by expenditure control. If Congress would simply hold .federal Spending to a 2% growth rate a year for .five yeafgzikkould balance the budget,and afford President Bush's. tax cut.

We should all remember the'words of President John F. Kennedy, who said:, ''If is a paradoxicaI,truth'that'when tax

. . . .

. ' I . I.., .. . . '

I rates are too high, the' economy will never produce enough jobs or enough,reve*s'to

1

. . I

,' Let's get the economy in to 'high gear again with tax cuts and balance the budget by cutting out-of-control govknlent . . . .

. . 1 spending;, , . . . . . ,, .

. . . .

. . I .

I .

, .

, .

F a

Stephen Moore is a senior felldw in economics at !he Cato Instilufe andpresident . . of The Club for Growth. .

8 . . .. . . . r-4 . . . .

. . LOAD-DATE: April 24,2003 ' ' '

. .

:, I

. . . . .. p

I I I I I I I I I I

I

'.I .

Document Links: Start of Document

LENGTH:"

I - . BYLINE: .

BODY . . t - .

I .

, I , ' SECTION: ' 1

HEADLINE: ! I

I

I '

I

.: ' :.

. . :. .. . . .

.. - I .

. .

c . l n .

'. .I' ' . I

v-r , . '. Copyright 2003'Newsday, Inc. '

Newsday ,(New York) I '

January 0,2003 Thursday.AL1 EDITIONS

SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. A33 t LENGTH: 728 words

pee, ,1113 HEADLINE: Tax-Cut Battle Will Be a Winner For the Economy', .:'

m 1

I

.. " .

. .

. . . .

I

! . . . .

. I

- , ..-.-..- e. . .

' I

. . . .

1

. . . . , - . . .

I

r: BYLINE: By Stephen Moore. Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow af the Catolnsti?ute.l . , ,

1

. . ' I

President George' W. Bush has proposed a $674-billion tax cut to help'pull the economy out if its.two-year, bear-market 'rut. In plan, Bush seemed to be announcing to the nation:

. ! I

. .

. . . . p,, When it comes to fax cuts to energize the economy, size does matter..

He's right. This bold plan - almost five times larger than the Democratic alternative - is exajly the right fiscal medicine at the right time. Its beneficiaries will be .workers, investors, states and cities - all of whom are front-line victims of an,emic economic growth, rates.

I I I I, I I

I I I

i

. . I

The centerpiece of the president's plan is elimination of the double t d t i o n of dividends. Curr'ently, dividend income is'taxed as,corporate income to the

business, and then as personal income to the individual receiving the dividend. This can resuit in effective tax rates on dividends as high as 70 percent. These punitive tax rates, in turn, reduce stock values, capital investment and savings.

John'Rutledge, a respected Wall Street economist and a former

Reagan administration economist, estimates elimination of the dividend tax could cause stock values'to rise by as much as 10 percent, which is good news for the 85 million American shareholders. Gary Robbins, of Fiscal Associates, says that a dividend tax cut will'increase Gross Domestic Product by at least $5 for every $1 of reduced tax receipts. That's a high economic pay-off. Even the Democratic critics of the president's plan unwittingly acknowledged the value of this plan when they criticize it for stimulating the stock market. What's,wrong with a plan that raises the wealth holdings and retirement incomes of American stockholders, who now make up almost half of all U.S. households?

'

I

I . '

. . e '

The other major feature of the Bush tax stimulus plan is to fast

forward the tax cuts from the president's 2001 plan. This, too, makes good economic sense.

The phased-in tax cuts in the 2001 tax plan were always of

questionable economic benefit. Would you go to the store today to buy a product if the store advertised that tomorrv the price will be marked down by another 20 percent? Delayed tax cuts delay economic activity and often have exactly the opposite impact as hoped. They de-stimulate the economy.

President Bush would accelerate his earlier tax cut. A majority of

I ,

. .

House and Senate members voted for the tax cut two years ago. Why not provide the full economic bang of the tax cut now, when the economy most desperately needs a shot ofsteroids? Cutting the highest income-tax rates is especially stimulative because roughly two out of every three Americans paying, the highest tax rates are small business owners. They are the wealth and. job

,

producers in our economy.

One reason the US. economy is ailing is that business investment.

has fallen dramatically, Simultaneously the US. venture capital industry, which provides the seed corn for new developing 2lst-century kompanies, is almost entirely dormant today. Why the skittishness? Investors don't see the profit opportunities in new ventures. Costs are too

taxes oncapital investment - Le., the capital gains tax and the dividends tax.

high for new businesses thanks to government meddling; payoffs' are too meager thanks to excessive ' . . .

'

. I

. .. I

. . . .

.. .

. . . I

. .

I . . . - . .

. . . .

I The objective of this'plan is to replicate the taxcut successes . .

of. Presidents Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. It wa6isFk hho said that "it is a.parad.oxica1 truth that when tax rates are too high the

!. Oefdt hawks in both parties will no doubt squeal that this #tax plan is unaffordable and will run UR the national debt. They are wrong:.What. ' . . economy will never:produce enough jobs or enough revenues to balance the budget."

Kennedy and Reagan ' , . .

I .

, :

I . .. , . . : . . ,

. . i:

and now Bush understand clearly is that it is the absence of economic growth !.hat causes runbay budget deficits. . .

. .

. So let'the class-warfare Democrats embra'ce small and impotent

.' .policy changes changes that increasingly sophisticated investor-class voters will immediately identify as fraudulent. The obstructionist ' Democrats'have announced that they intend 40 fight against the president's genuine Republican growth package and to wage all-out .

class-envy warfare. Bush has 90 million investor-class Americans on 'his side who realize that 'tax-rate cuts

'

' ' .

. .

I .

, . I , .

. mean higher stock values and greater retiEment security.

i f'd Republicans, must not shrink from the battle. Bring on the fight. ' . . .

) ' . .

Pb I

. . . . * .

GRAPHIC: PHOTO - Stephen MOare .

1: LOAD-DATE: January 9,2003 . .

.. . .

.. . . . .

. . '

. ' Co&rhht-@ 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights resewed. Your use ,of.this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

. .

1 . .. :I .

I

, . . . .

.. .

I

I'

.. . .

. .

- ..

i

4

e

. .

I

. : j !

i I1

. .! . !

. .

I

I

I

. . . . . . . Document Links:' .. - . . .

, Start of Document

' LENGTH: . ' HEADLINE:

. BYLINE: '

BODY:

. I ' SECTION: ' i

.. .. . . . .

:. .. . ' I

' I - .

I GRAPHIC: .. . LOAD-DAT E : I

b - 1 n .

'. .I' . I

**I' , . .

Newsday [,New York) . . . . Copyright 2002 Newsday, Inc.

I I '

. .

,March 21,2002 Thursday NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION . .

SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. A43,

lp''7 LENGTH: 720 words '

Ps 69 HEADLINE: Campaign $$ Curb Perils Free Speech '

'm . . .

_ . . . I '

! .

. _ . I

. . , . .

. -. . . .

' I

I

. - I pc BYLINE: By Stephen Moore; Stephen Moore is president of the C1u.b for Growth, a political action group, and a senior'fellow at the Cat0 r.l .InsitUte

.... . ' I

I

. .

I

. .

. . '' BODY: ' tq ' . ,

. ! I . . tC3

I p ~ ' most fraudulent,legislation in Washington since Hillary Clinton promised health insurance coverage no one could ever lose. P b h THE CAMPAIGN finance reform bili that passed the Senate yesterday. and was sent to President George W..: Bush, for his signature is the

'

. . . .

1

I I I'

I I I I I I

I .

Even those who support the idea of limiting special interest money that flows into campaigns and into the coffers of the political parties, will be disappointed with the bill's impactan our election process. Special interests still will be able to cozy up to Congress with nearly unlimited campaign spending - albeit through different routes. Campaigns will cost no less.

The creation of Sens. John McCain (R-Ark.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) is not about cleaning up elections or fighting political corruption. It is not about weeding big money special-interest influences out of politics. The legislation is first and foremost a jobs protection bill for members of Congress.

How so? The most insidious feature of this bill would prohibit issue-based organizations from running n/ br radio advertisements that criticize or praise a candidate in the 60 days before an election. This means, for example, that the National Rifle Association could not run an ad proclaiming: "Congressman John Smithereen is a buffoon because he voted 4 times for gun control legislation." Handgun Control Inc. could not likewise attack a congressman for his pro-gun votes.

What is more fundamental to the constitutional right of free speech than the right to freely criticize the policies of our own government and, by implication, the politicians who enacted the laws we find offensive or wrongheaded?

Imagine if this bill had existed during colonial days. Patrick Henry would announce that King George 111 was a big oaf for taxing the colonies to great excess, and out would come the lawyers and the magistrates to muzzle Henry, on grounds that his critique had come within 60 days of an election.

I

Political scientists have calculated that incumbents start off every campaignwith roughly a $SOO,OOO ,advantage due to high name recognition and the assorted privileges and perks (such as free mailings) of holding office.

Just about the only way to beat a sitting congressman or senator is to educate voters about what they stand for with 'rapid-fire shots at the incumbent's voting record and behavior in Washington. And this must be done not months, but days before the elections - when normal Americans who don't live and breathe politics start paying some modicum of attention.

The measure is mainly identified with McCain, who wishes to stifle competition against incumbents. For example, on nearly a halfdozen . occasions, McCain has ated the Club for Growth (a conservative political action committee) as a case study of the need for his campaign finance bill.

On CNN recently, Wolf Blitzer asked McCain why he supports a 60-day advertising ban. "It's because of outfits like this so-called Club for Growth," he replied. "Theycame into Arizona last year and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars of negative attack ads. No one knew who they were. No one knew who their funders'were."

What has McCain and his allies nervous is that issue groups like Club for Growth actually fund insurgent campaigns against incumbents in both parties. When the bill goes into effect, the chances of ousting an incompetent incumbent will be drastically reduced. How can voters be expected to ever "vote the bums out," if they don't know the facts about how their bum voted?

McCain's campaign bill wouldlead to less competitive, not more competitive, efections. A recent study of the myriad ofcampaign laws a! the state level by the Levy Economic Institute ofBard College discovered that limitations on campaign spending and advertising lead to higher

,

. . .

. .

. ..

I

. . . .

I

. . . .

-...

. . , ' . .

_ . . . .

. rates of election of incumbents. '

Is that,what voters really want? Under the current Jaws, in2:Tbpnts are virtually unbeatable unless they have committed a sex offense with a minor or they've been convicted of some other felony. Thk average incumbency re-election rate is between 96 percent and 98 percent, It's easier to get somebody out of prison than out of Congress. If anything, lawmakers should pass laws making elections more competitive, not

I

, .

i . . less.

. , . . I , , . . I

1 .

. .

\, ' 1 ':.

. . ' . 1 \ . '.

I . GRAPHIC: Newsday/Gary Viskupic -

I LOAD-DATE: March 21,2002 . . . . . .

CoDYriaht 0 2005 LexisNexisl' a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.'All rights reserved. Youruse of this service.is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

'

. .

.... . . . .

, I

. . , .

. .

. . ' _ . . . .

I

. .

I .

.._ . . .

. .

. .

. . 1 .

I ' : I

. .

. .

I '

I - 1 .

: , . .

I

. .'

I

I . .

' . I 1

I

j

I I

' . . I). I

. .

. . . .

. . ' . 4Re.tui-n .to Full .. -

. + I LexisNexis'". Academic , . I

I ' . . . . I

1 I

1 I

I. 1::

c-

. . . I S ' ' Copyright '2003 Boston .Herald Inc.

: I

The BostonlHerald I ....

I

I

. I

. . August' 5,20Q3 .Tuesday ALL EDITIONS '. .I'

far, . . . . . 4; . SECTION.: ED1TORIAL;'P.g. 025 '

I '

. :

I

. .

. . . . .

. . .

. .

. .

. . . . . .

. .

LENGTH: 602 words . .

HEADLINE: OP-ED; Big government fmds enablers among the GOP . .

. . BYLINE: By Stephen' MOORE . . .

BODY: : . . a ' .

...

. .

! .

- ......

. .

I

I . .

I . .

. I

, . .

. . . . . . .

I

i-i

:r them to the capital in the first place. r 3

It pains me to say this, but the Republicans in Washington seemingly have forgotten who they are and why voter I

Even though we now have GOP control of the White House, the Senate and the House, the bloated $2.25 trillion pi federal govefnment has grown more rapidly on President Bush's watch than it did under Clinton.

I

What in the world is going on here? Aren't the Republicans supposed io be the fiscally conscientious, anti-big government party?

I

I I always tliought so. It was music to my libertarian ears when the Gipper declared unforgettably h 1980 that big ' I In the 1990s, 1 worked with Newt Gingrich and Dick h e y to draft the Contract With i e r i c a and helped engineer

I ineffective and wasteful.

government isn't the solution to our nation's problems; big government lSthe problem.

the revolutionary Republican takeover of Congress. We Republicans pledged that we would make government smaller and smarter, and we would abolish hundreds of federal agencies, bureaus and departments that are obsolete,

: , I

. . But the war on waste has been lost virtually without even firing a shot. .

I I I I I I

President Bush and Republicans have enacted the biggest education bill in history. The new.$' 100 billion farm bill is the costliest ever, and gives many rich farmers $ 1 million in handouts. We just approved a $ 15 billion Africa aid bill and ma& Americans (especialIy those out of work)'are wondering whether that money couldn't be spent'a lot more wisely here at home.

With this kind of budget restraint, who needs George McGovern and Tip ONeill?

The Republicans are now working with Ted Kennedy on a Medicare prescription drug bill that is the biggest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ sat in the Oval office. Excuse me, but I thought we Republicans wanted to get rid of the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul income redistribution schemes.

The tentacles of the federal octopus have delved wider into every area of our lives and deeper into our pockets than ever before. Fred Smith, the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, says that new regulations on business have proliferated at a record pace under *this Republican administration. The Cat0 Institute finds that Bush is the biggest spender m the White House since the bygone era when the Beatles were still banging out hit records: It

. .

. .

. I

. . .

I

I

' : : I I

! .

!

i

I -, . . . .

. . . . .. .

. , . .

. I

. .

I .wasn't the tajr cuts that caused the deficit to'balloon to $450 billion this train of reckless' . '

. I federal spending: . .

Id'.&c I J 1'

Just last week House Republicans approved a $ 10 million hike in the budget. for the National Endowment for the , Arts . That was one of the morally offensive give-away programs Republicans promised they would work to extinguish. Now they're fattening its budget. it i e t s worse. Taxpayers.are noq subsidizing sexual pleasure by allowing Medicaid to pay for Viagra. A n d here's the ultimate outrage: The Republican ongress had ne y doubled the budget of the hated IRS.

I

I I ' Y, . There's only one depressing explanation: The limited government party of Reagan has morphed into the big spending

party of Rockefeller. So now we have two big government parties in Washington competing to see which can buy the most votes by passing out the most pork to the special interest groups.

. . . . . .

' That's awfbl news for aggrieved taxpayers and its, embarrassing news to, the apparent dying breed of Reagan. . . : . :

Perhaps'conservatives need ,a new political rallying cry: Big government Republicans aren't the solution;'th,ey are the

, ' I .

. . Republicans like me. , .

. . ' Ph

I ' . .

B.* problem. y4 qr Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow .at., the Cat0 lnstitute. q . . .

I . .. '' LOAD-DATE: August 05,2003 . I P% , P4

. .

. . I

I ' I .

:, *

... . I ' .

0 . 1 . :: ' .,

I. ... . . . .

. .

. . . . .

I ' . .

. . I

.- .

' I

a

. / . . I

' 1

I

. .

LexisNexis(TM) Academic - Document '

. .

. I

. ..

. .

c-

. . . .. - I , 7'Return t o Full

*: . ..

. . I ; :. .. . . . . . LexisNexisTM Academic

' I . .

.. - I

. .

' Copyright 2004 Q e '. .I Washington, Post .

_. - '

. .

I

. . > . . .

. .

. .

. .

. .

The Washington Post "

.. September '1 8,2004 Saturday ' Final Edition

. . . '

. .

. . ' I

. . . .

. ' .

I

SECTION: Editorial; 'A25

LENGTH: 914 words .

I

!I . . . . . . HEADLINE: Issue A&: Let ' ~ m ~ i p

I .

I

BYLINE: Stepben Moore . .

I

. .

I BODY:

. . .

President Bush and Sen.- John McCain would ban independently financed political attack ads fiom the TV and radio airwaves; Bush-says that election season ads by "527" organizations, sich as the one I run, the Club for Growth, "are bad for the political system." John Kerry, meanwhile, has been damaged in the polls by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads fmanced by big Republican donors; many of his suppurters want them pulled off the air.

Such complaints are drenched in hypocrisy, no matter which side they come fkom. Back when the White House was promoting the McCain-Feingold campaign'law, President Bush emphasized that a "fvst v d foremost" principle of democracy is to "strengthen the role of individuals in the political process by . . . protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." That is precisely what 527 organizations are doing this year.

It's interesting that liberal groups, which spearheaded the campaign reforms to keep the fat cats from spending unlimited dollars on the political process, were first out of the gate in the money-raising derby this election season, raising donations $1 million and $10 million at a time from, of course, fat cats. When

. George Soros wrote a $12 million check to MoveOn.org and other groups to defeat Bush, l i b d s and the Kerry camp defended it as necessary to "level the playing field," because the Bush-Cheney campaign had raised $200 million in small, hard-money donations.

Defending 527s in the current political environment is no easy task, but let me try; '

The first false premise about 527s is that way too much money is being spent this election season. This

I u

5127QQO5 1059 AM

I I O f 3

' . ,

: LexisNexis(TM) :Academic - D&ument. ' , ,

I

. .

'year as much as $1 billion is expected to %$6nt on.the presidential.election -- .about twice what was . . . '

' spent in'the. 2000 campaign. But a lot of money is being spent precisely because the stakes are so high. We . .

are deciding in November'who will be owl commander in chief in a war on terrorism against people who . . : . '

want to destroy our nation. We are deciding who will be the chief exechive of the.history of humanity:, an enterprise known as the federal governmept.\lt

I

hours. .

Political ads by outside groups fulfill an important role in our democratic system. They educate. They help ' keep Americans engaged in and attentive to the coming elections. The same good-government advocates who complain that Americans don't pay enough attention to politics and bemoan lower voter turnout in elections in recent years also want to muzzle advocacy groups that remind Americans that they have something at stake in the elections. This year citizens are more engaged than any time in recent memory, and the 527 groups are both a cause and a consequence of that engagement. I

The candidates and political parties want to ban the unrestrained flow of dollars to 527s so they themselves can monopolize the money and the message during the campaign season. Incumbents in Congress all rallied in favor of regulating uncapped spending by issue-oriented groups, because they want to ensure that their 96 percent reelection rate is protected against attack ads that might bring attention their positions on controversial issues. A ban on outside issue ads before an election won't just silence MoveOn.org but also messages from groups ranging fiom the Sierra Club to the National Taxpayers. Union, to the Girl Scouts, to Notre Dame, to the firefighters union. 1 don't have a clue who's telling the truth between John Keny and the Swift boat veterans, but it seems to me a healthy debate to have, especially because Keny has based his credentials for the presidency on his Vietnam service.

Which brings us to the thorniest and weightiest issue of all: Should the First Amendment protect TV and radio ads that attack or praise the positions of candidates within 60 days of an election? What seems clear is that our Founding Fathers sought above a l l else to protect political speech when they crafted the First Amendment. These were men who had risked all by criticizing and attacking the injustices of King George IlI. It seems doubtful they would applaud an interpretation of the Bill of Rights that said: "Congress shall qake no law abridging the freedom of speech -- except about candidates just before an election'' It's mighty depressing to see so many civil libertarians wanting to curtail political speech.

The other clay I was walking down a busy street in Washington when an earnest college girl holding a clipbsard asked me if I wished to sign up to help John Keny. 1 couldn't help wondering whether John McCain would think that she and the hundreds of thousands of others who are making important in-kind ,

contributions to help Bush or Kerry are engaging in a form of unregulated political speech that needs to be curtailed.

,

I

Why not keep the process open and unregulated? American voters aren't stupid. They will sort through the issue ads on TV, radio, the Internet, the telephone, the mail and any other form of communication. And they will make the . . right informed decision on Nov. 2. '. .

I

If George Soros wants to spend $100 million of his own money to educate the public 'about the blunders 'that Bush has made as president 9- as he has threatened to do -- why muzzle him? Let's have h l l disclosure of donations to candidates and political groups and let the voters decide whom to believe.

The writer is presideqt oftheClub for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cat0 Institute.

. '

.. 5/27/2005 10:39 AM

I I

I

:. I ' I-.. . .

L ' I

I. '

I

1

. .

. . .. - 4Return to'Full '

LexisNexisTM : ? ' Academic .

Copyright 2000 The Washington Post

washingGnpost.com I ,

The Wasbgton Post

July 16,2000, Sunday, Final Edition. .

I SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg; BO4 R ' h m

. . . . .

I 1

E LENGTH: 1470 words 1 ! h a

to !I

HEADLINE: Hey, Big'Spenders! Are You at the Right Party?.

BYLINE: Stephen. Moore ..

I

qr q

I

I

. .

. . . .

. .

... . ,

I .

. .

1

! .

I

. . . .

I

I

' ' ' . , I I

., I

-. . . , '

I

I I I I. I I I I I I

When he was president, Ronald Reagan used to quip that comparing the spending habits of Democrats to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. For at least a generation now, Republicans have reflexively tarred and feathertd the Democrats in Washington as spendaholics. The GOP's two watershed elections of recent times, 1980 and 1994, were won on successful attempts, first by Reagan, then by conservative congressional Republicans and Newt Gingrich as 'House speaker, to convince voters that the federal government had become too big and too intrusive--and that the fiscally reckless Democrats were to blame.

It's virtually certain that when the campaign season begins hearnest in a few weeks, Republicans will again skewer Democrats as tax-and-spend, nanny-state liberals. But this time, the strategy may fail--miserably. And it's not because Democrats are suddenly turning into a gang of fiscal tightwads. Rather, the problem is that Republicans have become prodigious spenders themselves.

I 1

Over the next five years, the Democrats would like to spend $ 10 trillion, if you consider projections included in President Clinton's final budget, which is generally considered to be a glimpse of A1 Gore's first budget. Ten trillion dollars? That's more money in real terms than it cost to fight World Wars I and 11, the Vietnam War, the Korean War and the Civil Wat combined. Congressional Republicans .say that's entirely excessive: Their comiterdemand is to spend $9.95 trillion. Not much of a difference. Either way, big government wins.

In a new Cat0 Institute study, Stephen Slivinski and 1 show that the 106th Congress is on paw to be the biggest-spending Congress on civilian social programs since the late 1970s. By year's end, federal social spending since January 1998 will have soared by $ 33.4 billion--or 1 1.3 percent after adjusting for inflation-compared with the 105th Congress. Rep. Tom Coburn, the retiring Oklahoma Republican who is one of the last of the GOP's budget '

hawks, fiets: "We Republicans have lost control of the budget process.''

.There is also a resurgence of big, bee@ budgets at the state level, where Republicans contlrol 3 1 governorships. Since 1996, state spending has grown at almost twice the rate of fkderal outlays. This is partly explained by the shift in responsibility for programs such such as welfare, but other programs are burgeoning in the states. New York Gov. George E. Pataki, who came to office as the antidote to -Mario Cuomo's tax-and-spend policies, now wants an 8

. .

i i . . I

I !

. .

, . . . -1 . .

. .

. . ' I - * '.: .

' . 'percent increase in .expenditures. ln.&zona, Gov. .Jane Hull has proposed higher 'sales taxes to spend more.on. .' .. . ':

I schools, and in Tennessee, the budget has .grown by ?early 50 percent under Gov, Don Sundquist's tenure. He is,now ' ' pushing that state's first-ever income tax. :All of ?&e& governors are' Republicans.

'!.For many years after 1 started covering the federal-budget process in the early :198Os, all domestic policy initiatives. "

_ . I :

were constrained by the moral crusade to eliminate the budget spending designs by reminding voters that with $200 billion prog.rams. But now that the deficit has become a surplus, the,

the Democrats'

, epic battles with Democrats over the budget. And so, the gold rush to spend money is on--in bok\darties. Call it the curse of $200 billion tax surplus, but there is no question that Republicans are in full-scale retreat from their rallying cry to make government smaller and smarter.

For an old-school fiscal conservative like myself, this story is thoroughly depressing.

i .

03 Back in 1995, as an adviser to Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, 1 helped the House Republicans craft one of * the most ambitious fiscal downsizing plans in decades. The plan called for eliminating three Cabinet agencies and 1: more than 200 programs. The House approved it. Most readers will recall the ensuing knock-down, drag-out fights '

r.l between Clinton and congressional Republicans over the future of the National Endowment for the Arts, education - ~r funding, the school lunch program, i d funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Clinton, his Democratic

I

, I 10

allies and special interest groups fought furiously against most of these spending cuts. Ultimately, they prevailed. I

I '' What is surprising, however, is not simply that most of the programs on the GOP hit list received a new. lease on life, but that they are now prospering as never before. To be sure, in 1995;a few dozen federal programs were eliminated, r

i I I E l I I I I I

. . . such as the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration and the Cattle Tick Eradication Program.

But since ,1997, not a single federal program of fiscal consequence has been eliminated. An absurd program, the wool and mohair. subsidy enacted before World War I1 to ensure I . an adequate supply of military uniforms, was mercifully eliminated in 1995-only to, be resuscitated in 1998.

Education Department funding is symptomatic of the GOP's newfound generosity. Education's budget has grown by :

more than 35 percent since 1996 and, according to Education Week magazine;many education programs are faring a lot better under a Republican Congress than they did when Democrats ruled Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, presumed Republican presidential nominee Gov. George W. Bush says he -wants to add several billion dollars more to the education budget. (Quick Name three or four federal programs that Bush says he wants to .get rid of.)

The 65 largest programs slated for extinction by the House Republicans' "Contract With Amea5ca" budget in 1995 have actually grown since then by 17 percent. What are we to deduce from this? That these programs--including. subsidies for peanuts and Amtrak, and tax dollars for Pillsbury and Ralston Purina to advertise their products overseas--may very well have attained a kind of fiscal immortality. They are the living dead of the federal budget process.

If Republicans couldn't cancel these programs during times of red ink, the chances of eliminating them when the budget coffers are overflowing with tax dollars are slim. We have arrived at total fiscal paralysis, with neither party able or willing to clean out the budget of even its lowest-priority agencies. (One happy exception is the telephone tax, first enacted to help finance the Spanish-American War of 1898, which seems to be ready for repeal just 100 years ,

later.) As Jonathan Rauch, author of "Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government,'' notes, it's hard to see why either New Democrat reformers or conservative budget hawks would applaud this development. The federal budget has become a clutitered attic of obsolete agencies started in the New Deal and the Great Society days. I'm now more convinced than ever ,that this housecleaning is unlikely to occur unless conservatives and liberals alike join forces in acknowledging that this agency immortality is the essence of bad govemment.

Republicans are .the poZitical losers if they surrender their claim as the anti-big-government party. A Zogby poll in March found that two-thirds of Americans think the government wastes at least 25 cents of every dollar it spends. And

I

. !

, , . i

i

' . . ' .I

I

. I

I

'I . .

. .

I

I

I

I . .

1. . . .

! . .

they are right. .Despite all the talk these day<'about voters'wanting 'more federal spending for.education'and. Medicare, . I - .

In 1998, just a fewweeks before the .election,Republicans passed a !$ 500 ,billion omnibus spending bil1,containing 1 lots of pork.for everyone. Conservative voters were so disgusted, they turned away from the polls, and the GOP's expected congressional.qgins melted away into losses.. Republicans--particularly Bush--are differentiating themselves well fiom Democrats on strategic policy issues: tax cuts; private accounts for Social Security and missile defense, just 1 to name a few. But unless they begin to rearticulate tbe'cav for, a smaller, Ad !eane! federal government,,Republicans' early poll advantages may vanish just as they did in 199%L:*i;

I . 'The Republicans'don't have to try to make the case for getkg rid of everything wastehl in' Washington at once, as ."

' they tried. and. failed to do in 1981 and 1995. But they have to make the case for getting rid'of sbmething. And they.: '

need to convince voters that, they will be 'more responsible guardians of the budget surplus than Gore and . .'. k, congressional Democrats. ,

UI But as things stand now, that's'not an easy case to nnake;'The dirty little secret i s that there are two big govemhmt.

. . I > I ' . . ' voters .. don't seem especially . . eager . . for a new Great Society spending binge. - . , .

. . 9

': :. c- . .

. . . . . .

. . I . . , .

' , . . . . .

. . ,

. . " .

. . ... . , , I

parties in Washington. In my.book, that's at least one too many. 1. ' I

. .

4 .-I: I . . . . . . .

: . . . q . rli' ~3 Stephen'Moore is an adjunct ,'fellow at the Cat0 Institute and president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political

I LOAD-DATE: July 16,2000

. . I.

t

! '

I

. .

. .

I

. .

I

:. I I

. .

I .

I

. .

. . .

i . .. . . I . -

. . SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 33

1 ' LENGTH: 875 words . . . .

*..' ' 1

4Return ta Full :'

. LexisNexisTM Academic .

Copyright.20;03 Chicago Sun-Times, h c . '

. . I .

f*i,h :,J. P

\ Chicago Sun-Times, . . \, ' I

1

' . I \ ' . February 23,'2003 Sunday . .

. .

' . _ . .

. .

. .

. .

. . - . .

HEADLINE: Congress packs more pork than eier in budget bill . .

I

BYLINE: Stepben Moore' ' . . ' C 6

.HIGHLIGHT:

. .

. . , . . .

I : . .

p? One Capitol Hill staffer, reported that it was 'Christmas morning for lobbyists. . ' fir .. . .

BODY: bh America may be on the eve of war. We may have #a rotten economy. We may have to wor& about terhrism and our

. .

. ' I

. .

' I i .

' ! I . . .

. .

. . .

J 'homeland security. And we may have big, beefy and economically debilitating budget deficits again. 1 I I I I I I E I I

But if you think that any of this has caused Congress to temporarily rise like Churchillian statesmen above petty politics, forget it. Congress has now sent to the president one of the ugliest spending bills in a decade--a $400 billion "omnibus spending bill" that busts the budget and sets Olympic records for the levels of pork barrel spending. This 2,100-page monstrosity is so crammed with special interkst parochial projects that many of the costly gems hidden away in this bill probably won't be found for weeks to come. Yet only 31 Republicans in the House voted no.

The day the bill was drafted, one Capitol Hill staffer reported that it was Christmas morning for lobbyists. One of my spies who went to thumb through the bill reported that lobbyists were rushing through the halls of the House office buildinis gleefully reporting to their clients news like this: "Jim we got the parking garige. Yep, l l l y funded--all $290,000 of it. And we got .the skating rink funded too." Or, "Good news, sir. Our new marble cowthowe building got snuck in the bill late last night. Congratulations."

This bill is such a. fiscal embarrassment that it is exactly the kind of pork-larded monstrosity the Democrats used to shamelessly pass and Republican conservatives used to rail against. These kinds . . of abuses of the public.fisc won't happen when we're in charge,. the Republicans used to say.

Unfortunately for the pork barrelers, tire good folks at the House Republican Study Committee raked through as much of the bill as they could stomach without getting physically ill, and here are some of the noxious items they discovered:

*$l million for the Iowa Historical Society for exhibits related to the world food prize.

*$750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

*$725,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia. 1

*$500,000 for the Boat House Museum in St. Charles, Mo.

I i .

j : i I

I

I

. .

. .

I

I I

i

. . . . . I '

I I:. . . . . . * ' . ' ' I ' , .;.' ! , ". ,:.

. I

. . . . . . . .

' . _ '

. .

! +$500,000 forTongass Coast Aquarium in-Alaska. . ' . . .. . .

. . . I I . ' : ! k$350,000.fok- the Rock and- Roll . . Hall of Fame:, r. . .

.. ._ . ' . .

. . *. . I.

. .

.. "

. i . . . . . .

"$21 0,000. for s b h e hoopbarn research in Iowa.

*$150,00O'for office renovations for Sen. Robert Byrd @-W.Va.J. . .

. . . ' I

. .

. ' . . .

...

*I",, . ' I 1 There's also money for a cowgirl museum, dozens of univdrsity "researcli grants" ~ t h price tags in the millions of , , , ,

I . ~romamileaway. . .

I dollars, and expanded eligibility for farm aid (on top of &:$170 billion farm bill we just passed IastCongress!). , . .

Citizens Against Government Waste calls the bill the "pofJciest bill ever." And those waste watchers~can.smel1 bacon.

The chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, Bill Young, calls this. biIka "victory for national

' . , -. . " . ,

. . . .

'

I w, defense.'' That's true 'only if you think spending $250,000 to promote soccer or $300,000 for sweet potato research . . . . : :

os makes you feel safer from' our foreign enemies or if you think crickets and'grasshoppers are a primary 'threat to our . I security (there is nearly $1 million in the biil. to control these critters). . .

" . . I .

. .

I P ~ . The bill isn't just objectionable .because of the thick slabs: of pork. It's a grade A budget 'buster. 'Its price tag came ' I . -

:''I $2.2 billion above the funding level fhat the president agreed to'in negotiations in Congress. It iseasily $10 billio ,t to , . ' 1;; $2.0 billion higher than is. fiscally responsible at a time'of war and $200 :billion budget . I deficits. - (3 ph The $54 billion allocated for the Education Department is nearly a 10 percent increase in spending over last year and

lc'd further validdtes the meddling tentacles of Uncle Sam into local school operations. Republicans are proving tg be

I E I I. I I I I I I

bigger spenders on Jimmy Carter's Education Department than Democrats ever were.

Perhaps the most fiscally outlandish provision of this bill would be to incrkase Medicare payments to doctors-whicc could cost taxpayers an estimated $50 billion over the next 10 years. With rampaging health care costs swallowing up the federal budget, this provision will only accelerate Medicare's bankruptcy.

Sadly enough, the bill passed the House last week with just a few random opponents. Incredibly, some left-wing Democrats voted against the bill because they didn't think it spent enough money. The few brave Republicans who bucked the party couldn't in good conscience bring themselves to vote "aye" for a bill that is so damaging to our nation's finances.

I

r

Back when the farm bill was being debated last year, Rep. Jeff Fl&e of Arizona rose up on the House floor and issued a two-minute lecture to his colleagues in opposition to the bill. One of his Democratic colleagues challenged Flake and questioned what a congressman from Phoenix could possibly know about farming. Wrong question. Flake g e w up on a farm. And he responded to the counterattack by saying: ."I may not be in agriculture anymore, but after a childhood of living on a farm, 1 assure you, congressman, that I know manure when 1 see it."

I

Too bad more of the distinguished gentlemen and ladies on Capitol Hill don't know manure when they see it. . .

Stephen Moore is president of the CIub for Growth in Washington.

GRAPHIC: Associated Press, Steven Tyler of Aerosmith (left) and Kid Rock perform at an induction ceremony for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which would get $35O,OOO,under the spending bill Congress sent to President Bush.

LOAD-DATE: April 13,2003

-~ . . t

. . . .

. . . . . I '

' SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg.. 20 . . . . . ' ' LENGTH: 748 words'

cc LexisNqcisTM l*r.h :m . j Academic , .

* .

Copyright ,202 Chicago Sun-Times, lnc.

August 24,2002 Saturday . ' .

Chicago Sun-Times ,- \ . '

- . I \ .

. . 1 ~~~ HEADLINE:, FCC should leave digita1,television to a free market

c(3 @BYLINE: Stephen Moore

'*' Let consumers decide, writes Stephen Moore

~1 BODY:

. ' . .

. .

I

. .

. .

I . .

. . . . . .

. I'

I . '

. . . . ' . .

. .. P& So much .for the myth that federal regulators protect the little-guy consumer from big business. . .' . . .

On Aug. 8, the Federal Communications Commission approved a new nile that will raise the cost of a new TV set by as much as $250. The purpose of this TV tax is to force American consumers to purchase a product they have rehsed to pay for voluntarily. This is a naked case of regulatory corporate welfare: putting the financial interests of industry lobbyists ahead of the consumer.

The new FCC regulation will require all new TV sets to come equipped with the capacity to carry digital broadcasts. Digital .TV is the newest fad in TV engineering. It will allow TV sets to eventually receive DVDquality picture and . sound. Currently, the "digital tuners" to provide this new technology aren't cheap. They can easily add $200 to $300 to the cos\ of a TV--which in some cases is more than the cost of the new TV itself.

Broadcasters and some TV manufacturers who produce the tUners--Zenith, for example--are feverishly pushing the new regulation.

Michael Powell, the normally free market leaning FCC chairman, is leaning toward approving the new law, which would prohibit stores fiom selling Tlvs Without the tuner after 2006.

The FCC was, of course, created to safeguard consumer interests, but in this case the agency wiU mandate a new expensive technology, whether consumers want it or not. Most American households already have access to cable or satellite TV. .These viewers have mostly shunned the digital TV fad. Requiring these consumers to buy tuners with their T V s makes as much sense as forcing McDonald's customers to buy the fies if they want the Big Mac; or Apple to sell computers with Intel chips inside, or even baseball card packs to come with a stick of gum.

We have here a multimillion dollar income transfer from the TV viewing public to the broadcasters, with Uncle Sam '

as the policeman and enforcer. In this case, the broadcasters' rush for special favors from government are no diffaent or less justified than the handouts to the steel industry, timber companies and millionaire farmers.

The bro.adcasters disingenuously justify their federal protection racket by arguing that the economies of scale from mass purchases can lower costs to consumers. No doubt that's true. But, of course, that argument could be made to justify government interference in every new business and industry. If the government would require people to buy

I

-

I

*

I

,

I

I

I

I I

I I . :

I

I

lemonade from my son's roadside stand, he tan lower his costs and prices too. To listen to the sanctimooiok "public interest" arguments of the broadcasters, one might think they were selling the polio vaccine-not a prettier picture on a

The FCC's case for his product mandate is weak in the extreme. There is no market failure here thatxeeds to be redressed. In fact, history proves just the opposite. One of the hallmarks of the new high technology age is how rapidIy consumer electronic innovations become available to the mass Ibuying public. Today, through the magic of the fiee market, even low-income households can afford colorlSV sets, cellular. telephones, CD players, DVD pkyers, microwave ovens, the Internet, personal computers, and c@\,d on. The di'ffision of these technologies, in virtually

I - - - . TV screen. r *. I

q

every case, occurred without government aid. ' I, I

If anything, government's track record has been one of inhibiting the diffbsion of exciting technologies. This has indisputably been the case in the area of broadband technology. Government regulations of telecommunications in the 1990s have shrunk the incentive for phone companies to invest in the necessary cable infrastructure to bring

!>gh-speed broadband service to tens of millions of homes and businesses that still lack access. Here, government' has contributed to the digital divide in America. C D

I hl I psAs for digital TV, th is new technology will become widely adopted, not when the gdvefnment decrees it to be so, but F'3when the prices fall fast enoua so that Americans willingly purchase the product o,n their own. The FCC

I z$nproves and prices fall.

I

"stand in the way of this new technology, but it shouldn't mandate it either. When the consumer is king, I

Pic mThe FCC's iatest assault against consumer sovereignty should be overruled by Congress--and before the next station, .

I break. I

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Grdwth and a senior fellow at thecaio ~~titute'in'washinglon, D.C.' I

I

GRAPHIC Associated Press, The day will come digital TVs,are widely embraced by consumers; but prices must

LOAD-DATE: September 9,2002

' .

comedownmore'first. . . . . . r. .

. _ .

I I

I

' I I

. .

I

. .

I

I

. .

. .

I '

I . .... ' I

.tReturn t o Full ' , . . . .

, : . . .

. !

LexisNexisTM Academic .. . I

Copyright 2002Chicago Sun-Times, Inc. I

'"rnnCldc'iqjo Sun-Times \.' '

' . I \ . March 25,2002 Monday , . ,

. . I . \

. a 1 . ' . . SECTION: ED.1TORML; Pg. 29

I LENGTH: 637 words . .

' HEADLINE: Campaign reform muffles opposition ,.. .

. . . .

%' CI3 BYLINE: Stephen Moore . I .

. .

-VI It's job protection for incumbents - - - E BODY: The campaign finance reform bill headed to President Bush's desk is the most iaudulent legislation in Washington

J since Hillary Clinton promised heath insurance coverage no one could ever lose. i' Sen. John McCain's creation is not about cleaning up elections or fighting political co&ption. It is not about weeding big-money special-interest, influences out ,of politics. This legislation is. first and foremost a jobs protection bill for members,of Congress. . I.

I I. I I I I I I I

How so? The most insidious feature of this bill would prohibit issue-based organizations from running TV or radio advertisements that criticize or praise a candidate in the 60 days before an election. This means, for example, that the National Rifle Association could not run an ad proclaiming: "Congressman John Smithereen is a buffoon because he voted four times for gun control legislation." Handgun Control hc. could not likewise attack a congressman for his pro-guh votes. L

.- -

I '

What is more fundamental to the constitutional right of free speech than the right to freely criticize the policies of ow own government and, by implication, the politicians who enacted the laws we find offensive or wrongheaded?

Imagine this bill had existed during colonial days. Patrick Henry would announce that King George was a big oaf for taxing the colomes to great excess, zind out would come the lawyers and the magistrates to muzzle Henry, on grounds that his critique had come within 60 days of an election.

Political scientists have calculated that incumbents start off every campaign with roughly a $500,000 advantage due to high name recognition and the assorted privileges and perks (such as h e mailings) of holding office. Just about the only way to beat a sitting congressman or senator is to educate voters about what they stand for with rapid-fire shots at the incumbent's voting record and behavior m Washington. And this must be done not months but days before the elections-when normal Americans who don't live and breathe politics start paying some modicum of attention.

McCain wishes to stifle competition against incumbents. For example, on nearly half a dozen occasions, SMcCain has cited the Club for Growth (which I run) as acase study m the need for his campaign finance bill. On CNN recently, Wolf Blitzer asked McCainwhy he supports a 60-day advertising ban. "It's because of outfits like this so-called Club for Growth," he replied. "They came into Arizona last year and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars of negative attack ads. No one knew who they were. No one h e w who their h d e r s were.''

I

'

a

t

e

I ' ...m . .

I

. .

.. . . . . .

. . . . . .. -

I . .What has M c C e and h.is allies nervous is'that issue groups like ours actually fund insurgent campaigns against ,

- . :incumbents.in both parties., if the McCain, bill is enacted into.'law, thexhances of ousting an. incompeteat-incumbent wiU be drastically reduced. How can voters be expected to ever '!vote the bums out,'' if they.don't know the fzfcts-about howtheirbumvoted? . .

: I .. . . .

. . I - ' . . . . . . ' I

McCaids campaign bill would lead to less-competitive, not more-competitive, elections.:A recent study of the myriad of campaign laws at the state level by the Jerome LevyInst@ute discovered that limitations on ,campaign' spending and

': Is that wh,at voters really want? Under the current laws, i n k b e n t s are'virtually'unbeatable .unless they have '

re-election rate is between 96 percent and 98 percent.

advertising lead to higher rates of election of incumbents:;:': . . . .

.. . . .

: " ' I. ' committed a sex offense with a minor or they've been'convicted .of some other felony. The 'average incumbency .' '

I CQ It's easier to get somebody out of prison than'out of Congress. If anything, lawmakers should pass laws making !

I s"9

. .

. . I P% . '

. . elections more competitive,' not less. .. . I

I L l Stephen Moore is president ofths Club for Growth, a pro-growth, free market, issuh advocacy. organization in 'K;& Washington, D.C. I

1;; LOAD-DATE: March 27,2002 . . P'4

I I"' I

. . .. .

I . ' " _ . -

1

. .

!I

. . .

I.

. .

I .

. .

. :

I

I

' . .I' , , I .

. .

I

I

I .

: .

. .

. . I .I . .

, : . . .

. .

I j.' .. .

LENGTH: 1251 words .

HEADLINE: .=on and,Me . . . .

BYLINE: Stephen Moore ' .

BODY:

. . - . ; ~. , ::. .* 1.'

. . 4.Return t o Full '. . .

. LexisNpexisTM Academ.ic .

. . I4i.R S J

Copyright, 2002 The American Spectator The American Spectator \ I

. . I \ . March 2002 - April 2002 , ' .

I .

.#...

I . . . .

I .

. . ' . 1 -

. .

I . . . .

, , I'

. .

. .

. ' . ' m . e ,. .. . . .

These days, the ultimate status symbol in Washington is to have been on Enron's payroll. The beneficiaries list reads like a Who's Who of the Washington power structure. It includes Robert Rubin, Karl Rove, Larry Lindsey, Frank .

Luntz, Bill Kristol, Robert Zoellick,-Peggy Noonan and, of course, tke-quarters of the members of Congress. Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed's $300,000 in Enron eonsulting payments got him on the Washington Post's front-page. In all, over the past decade, Enron tossed around tens of millions of dollars from its political piggy bank. I

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not casting aspersions on the list of Enron luminaries-far from it. This article is motivated by jealousy, not rage. To have received not so much as a nickel, while the rivers flowed into the pockets of politieians, lawyers, influenee peddlers, public relations firms and think tanks-it's, well, a bit embarrassing actually. If you're missing from the Enron payload, you're no one in this town.

And so it was with great humility in early March that I had to confess to a Washington Post political reporter (who shall remain namelcss) that neithcr I nor the Club for Growth-the organization I'm supposed to raise - money for-has ever tasted from Enron's bottomless glass. Water, water, everywhere, and nary a drop to drink.

"Surel;; The Club for Growth received some Enron funding?" the snooping reporter asked incredulously. "Look,"- I said, "we sought Enron money. Does that count?'' No, I was told. Wait, 1 remembered, Ken Lay spoke'at a Club for Growth conference last year. "Aha, and how much money did Enron pay for that favor?" the reporter asked triumphantly. 1 Exactly zero, I had to confess.

The Post reporter was almost as shaqered by all of this as 1 was. He was working to connect the dots on a clever and plausible theory-that The Club for Growth, which is running TV ads attacking Tom Daschle for torpedoing the economic stimulus bill, has been paying for those ads with Enron money. What a scintillating plot line! Everyone in Washington knows that h o n would have received a gazillion doliars in tax write-offs from the House stimulus bill. Oh how 1 wish I could have been able cavalierly to reply: "Well of come we got Enron money. Didn't everyone?"

The reporter remained dogged. "Wait a minute, isn't so-and-so up in New York on your board of directors, and doesn't '

his firm sell Enron securities?" Sorry, no luck. "But he's a member of The Club for Growth, right?" the reporter conjectured. "Yes, yes, that's it!" I said, suddenly exhilarated and exonerated. "You're really on to something-we do &t . I

Enron money. We do! We do!" *

.a. . The story never ran.

A few days later, I was much better prepared when I was bombarded by the same set of questions from a Rolling .

Stone magazine "investigativet' reporter (strange as that may sound). This fellow was much more. selfxertain and . '

a .

. .'

I

I 1 . 1 . . . .

. . . I ' . .

I

. .

. If I h-dled this right, 1 could conceivably .wind up "on the cover of the Rolling Stone." To try to keep the story dive ':: I .:. without Iybig,' 1 gave this bloodho,md what 1 thought was a brilliant non-denial.denial. My answers were.evasive,.

C ' I

. . .. . .. ' deftly tiptoeing the border. of fdsehood.'They were truly Clintonesque. '

But, alas, so .far no one'from Rolling Stone'has called'about setting up a photo shoot.'

. . . . .

. . I S .

! I

i , . '.; . . _ . . . .. -

I

The only notoriety that I've received from this whole,ncandal has been from nutty left-wing watchdog.groups, who-regrettably-no one pays any attention to. A group caJ6.d Mediawhorkson1ine.com published a piew entitled "Friends of Enron , . .Launch Vicious' Ad Attack on Daschle."'(Why oh why couldn't this have appeared in Rolling ' ' ' ,

Stone?). The piece's lead is so absolutely perfect that 1 coulfh't have penned it better myself:

"In a sudden sneak attack, the friends of Enron and its deposed C.E.O. 'Kenneth Lay have begun running vicious . '

personal 'television attack ads against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The ads are meant to .terrifl voters into submission over the White House economic'and.energy'plans, planskrgely dictated, we now know, by Kenneth Lay. .

The group claiming responsibility for the ads calls itself , _ . . The Club for GT0wt.h.". ,

I I

. . . . .

:

1 .

us '

I

I L: And here's the kicker: "The well-financed Club for Growth, little known to the public, has numerous ties to Enron and '

Lay." These "numerous ties" consisted of Lay's aforementioned talk at a Club for Growth conference. Daschle's 'V political team picked up on the story, because the next week "South Dakotans for Daschle" started running TV rr attacking the Club for Growth as a shill for Enron.

I

P.. pd Now let's get serious for a moment here. The theory that The Club for Orowth was being paid by Enron to attack Senator Dasdhle was always half-baked. Any semi-witted fact checker could have discovered that it was Dasc?ile, not I us, who was on *e Epon gravy train over the,years.

I Why in the world would Enron have wanted to fund The Club for Grow@ or me personally, given our anti-big-government and anti-corporate-welfare stands? Enron was the ultimate Washington gold digger, always lustily seeking some "fair advantage" fkom a government program or policy. As my Cat0 lnstitute colleague Jerry Taylor, one of Washington's premier regulation analysts, has pointed out, Enron was the M e s t thing fkom a I proponent of the free market's hvisible hand for energy and electricity policy. The company participated in nearly every cockeyed subsidy scheme Congress ever invented. It was a regular purchaser of seats on the late-Clinton Commerce Department Secretary Ron Brown's famous trade missions around the globe. Enron received cash, loan and

I

I

I insurance transfusions fiom Uncle Sam via such Washington-to-Fortune-500 slush fund programs as the Export-lmport Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp.

. If there's any sane lesson that Congress should take away from the Enron political scandal (and this is assuredly both a corporate and political scandal), it is not that we need campaign finance reform-it is that we need federal spending reform. Want to get rid of corporate political cormption?.Abolish corporate welfare so that Fortune 500 firms don't spend half their energy and public relations budgets farming Washington. With $100 billion of corporate loot divvied up by Congress every ycar, the wonder is that there aren't 100 Enrons out there, with tentacles into every law firm, media outlet and congressional office in the District of Columbia. And perhaps there are.

The one lesson I've learned from my 20-year experience in Washington is that corporate America is perhaps a bigger adversary to small government and the free market than even Tom Daschle. Republicans, and specifically the Bush administration-whieh, of course, had a particularly cozy relationship with Enron-could go a long way toward defusing the Enron crisis by calling for abolition of the Commerce Department, the Export-Import (Ex-Tm) Bank and other CEO feeding troughs. That'll probably happen the day the Olympics installs fair and impartial judges at skating events. Which is to say never. Even though .doing t h i s would almost guarantee Bush's re-election-to say nothing of helping rebalance the budget.

As for me, I will continue to chase down those corporate dollars-probably futilely. I'm not a shill for companies like Enron; I'm still just a wannabe. . .

. .

'. : .

. . Stephen Moore is president of

The Club for Growth.

LOAD-DATE: June 20,2002

I

. . . I ' . '

I ' .

. #..I.. ; I

\,

.,.. .

. . ' . I , \ . I

I

\

. .

. .

I

' Document Links: Start of Document

- SECTION: , I LENGTH:. I

' HEADt'l N E : RG INF- i ,

i . ..

I '

': ' :. . .

. . . . . ' I

I

. .. . .

.. . . .

. . . b - l r i . .

Copyright 2004 'Inv.est6ts Business.Daily, Inc. ' . . :

www. ihhstors.com . . Investor's Bbsiness Daily

I '

September 17,2004 . . Friday. . . .

'

1 ~ 9 1 LENGTH: 956 words '

SECTION:' SECTION A; NATIONAL ISSUE; NATJONAL EDITION; pg. Ai4 . .

fl:r a HEADLINE: Deregulating Electric Power: Regulators Can't Get It Right 1;; BYLINE: BY STEPHEN MOORE

.._ . I ,

! . . .

. --.. .,

B

. .

I

. .

. .

I

I . . -" BODY: "r If there's'any lesson that policy-maiers should have learned from the .electricity blackouts throughout Califomia.in 2002 q:P

PPI.

Coast earlier this year, i1'i.s that electric power deregulation done the wrong way can cause soaring prices and leave . !:

. . dark. ' .. '

In California, homeowners and businesses had to ration electricity use, dim the lights and turn off their air conditioners. A basic senrice that .' we as America'ns take for granted --the cheap and uninterrupted access to electric power.for light, for heat, for running our computers,. . ' '

powering our hair dryers and dishwashers, and accessing the Internet - was suddenly a .scarce commodity. :

I I

I I I I. *

I I I I I I

Given that our elehric power network is the central nehous system of the U k economy, we better make sure Congrpss and regulators get it: right as laws regulating electric utilities are restructured; Disruptions 'in electricity supply and rising prices could bring our ebnomic expansipn to a screeching halt. I

Unfortunately, federal, regulators seem incapable of deregulating in ways.that will benefit consumers and keep the nation's s.upply of electricity dependable. '

Had To Back Off r.

Last year the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed a plan to restructure the national electricity market that would have required private power generating companies across the country to came under the authority of newly created mega-Regional Transmission Organizations, The' Standard Market Design would have essentially federalized electricity markets.

The plan provoked outrage from governors, state utility commissioners, consumer groups and freemarket conservatives. FERC was forced to retreat.

FERC is now trying to accomplish its power grab through a series of rule-making proposals, court'filings and other means of redllrlatory fmt. FERC wants to force local power utilities to join regional transmission organizations, which would effectively prevent them from providing a .

first right of service to the very'customers who paid for the power.plants and transmissions lines in the first place.

Cheap P k r

FERC maintains that this. intenrention will foster competition in electricity markets, which will in turn lower utility bills. That's certainly a laudable goal. But it's hard to argue that the current system, warts and all, hasn't kept prices low.

Adjusted for inflation, electricity prices are lower now than they've been throughout most periods in history. Electricity prices haven't risen at nearly the rate that oil and other energy prices have. '

.

So why does FERC insist on "fixing" a system that seems to be working?

Deregulation is supposed to mean fewer rules and less red tape. When Ronald Reagan lifted price controls on oil and'natural gas in the early 1 9 8 0 ~ ~ all that was needed was a stroke of his pen on a one-page executive order. FERC needs 603 pages just to explain their plan.

in some ways, the FERC scheme more closely resembles the multi-layers of bureaucracy in the failed Hillary Clinton health care plan of the mid-1 990s than a deregulation manifesto.

FERC's plan is hugely expensive. In a recent report, the Public Power Council found the costs of FERC's regioel transmission organizations .has quadrupled from $250 million to $1 billion from 1998 to 2004. The number of employees at the Midwest organization.jumped more than, 400% from 80 in 2000 to 465 in.2004.

. .

. .

. I

. .

1

I

' . I . .

I ' . . .

I

. . .. . ,

! : , . .

I

In Texas, the numbers exploded from 50 .bureaucrats in 2000.to 530 in 2004, according to the Public Power Council . . study.' ' ' . .

It appears that FERC's primary'goal is not to serve consumers, but rather to serve as a .life raft to.the merchant generating industry.at ihe . very time that Wall Street and credit rating agencies are fully prepared to :bury the-industry because of poor businessdeciSon-making. :

Standard% Poor's ,energy analyst Peter Rigby notes that "independent power producers gambled on' a business model based onlapid arid'

Now these indebted powermgenerating companies face a peifect storm 6f rising interest rates, soaring natural . . gas . p&s.and:declining. electricity demand, and they want a de facto bailout from Uncle Sam.

Bailouts of bad business practices aren't consistent with a fred"markq model of survivql of the fittest. Airline deregulation forced some inefficient airlines such as Pan. Am and Eastern out of business, ar@?thers, such,as JetBlue; rose out of, their ashes.

': In the telecom deregulatory environment, investment decisions'madqjn the crazed late 1990s led to tens of billions of dollars in overinvestment, shareholder losses and eventual bankruptcies. Uncle Sammever rushed in to use taxpayerdollars to keep these companies

. '

. . i , .

'

1 .

I. debt-funded,growth." :. .. . . . . .

' '

.. . I

I

. . I I . afloat. ' . .

. - . . . . . . .

Everyone wants to ensure thatzaptive local customers aren't price gouged by local electric utilities, which in many areas still operate as legal regulated .monopolies. The goal is to eventually allow the power markets to evolve so that homeowners .and businesses can purchase' .

efectricity.on the national power grid from any number of competing utilities. ' .

. . Lights Out. ' . . . I

The genuine deregulation model in electricity should work very much like deregulated phone senrice now operates, where consumers can choose from many phone companies on the basis of reliability and cost. Under that model, .long,distanw' priceshave plummeted. .

FERC talks the talk of deregulation: but it intervenes in the marketplace to transform losers into witkers. If.FERC continues with this m del, it may not be long before its phony'"deregu1ation" scam brings the California crisis to the rest of the nation.

Congress should turn out the lights at the FERC before these bungling regulators turn the lights out on the .rest of us;

,I.' . ! I

I ' .

_ . . . . .

is president of the Club for Growth. 1 -

I

LOAD-DATE: September 17, 2004

Corwriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division, of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions .'Please review them. I

. . I

. . . . .

. . 1: .

, !. I ,

. .

I

. *

1

Document Links: Start of ,Document '

SECTION: LENGTH :

. HEADLINE: BYLINE: '

BODY: LOAD -DATE:

. .

Copyright 2004 investor's Business Daily, I'm. . www.investors.com

investor's Business Dairy

. . ' April 28,2004 Wednesday

SECTION: SECTION ISSUES & INSIGHTS; BRAIN TRUST; NATIONAL EDITION; Pg. A14

LENGTH: 773 words

HEADLINE: Government's Power To Tax Shouldn'tTangle Up Internet ,

. . '

BYUNE: BY STEPHEN'MOORE

BODY: . .

1

' I .

! .

For the past five years Congress has imposed a wise moratorium on taxation of the. Intemet..Over that period the Internet economy has more than doubled in size and the percentage of American, homes with Internet access has nearly doubled to 75%.

This week the Senate is debating legislation on whether to e ~ e n d that tax'moratorium or allow states to begin taxing access to the Web. A' new tax would allow states and cities to impose a de facto toll on Internet use. These tax charges could cost families as much as $1 50 a year and thus make the Internet too costly for many families to afford.

In other words, Congress may inadvertently widen the' digital divide between rich and poor in America by taxing Internet access. Burdehing homeowners with a charge to use the Internet makes as much sense as assessing a fee for checking out a book at the local library.

Republicans are divided on this issue. Sen. George Allen of Virginia wants to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent, whereas Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee wants to lift the ban.

Alexander has taken the side of governors and mayors who see the Internet as a potential cash cow to fund more public services. . :

On Allen's side is President Bush, who earlier this week reiterated his longtime position that eeommerce shouldn't be taxed, in line with the GOP-rnpjority House that has passed a tax moratorium.

.The big problem is Alexander and ... a handful of other internet pro-tax,Republicans, including George Voinovich and Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

They should understand that a tax on the Internet could do real damage to the U.S. economy just as it is getting its feet back under itself from the, tech implosion of 2000-2001. After all, much of the growth of the economy in the past 18 months has come from the rebound in the technology/dot-corn industry sectors.

. . Web Power '

The original idea behind the Internet tax ban was to prevent government from slaying'this golden goose technology. As Justice John Marshall once observed, "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

By making ihe Internet tax ban permanent, Congress has an opportunity to create a massive free-trade zone in the realm of e-commerce. In the U.S. alone, e-commerce accounted for $500 billion in business activity and employed 2.3 million Americans. The Internet sector ofthe economy is growing at 12% per year compounded.

.Within 10 years the Internet could account for more than 10% of the US. economy. In other words, ecommerce is America's gtowth engine.

Even the uncertainty about future Internet taxes has stifled business activity. The telecommunications sector of the economy now stands ready to invest billions to upgrade the nation's communications networks and make high-speed (or broadband) internet access available to all American homes and small businesses, as it is for large corporations today.

Opponents of the ban' believe that this policy deprives state'and focal governments of money needed to fund vital public services. Alexander has absurdly labeled the federabban on the Internet access taxes an."unfunded mandate on states."

But an unfunded mandate is a requirement by the federal government for the states and localities to spend money. This policy doesn't even deny states and cities a traditional revenue source.

.

'

. .

. .

I

I

I

I ' . 1

I .

. :

I . . . .

' I .

. . . I '

. ' ' * ' ' . "- ' '. I:....

. . . * : . . . .

. I

Most importantly, the growth of the Internet and the. information economy has beeman enormous net positive fiscal developmerh for:the' . ' ,

states. In the '199Os, as the Internet economy soared, state and local revenues grew at a rate three times the pace of inflation.

' .' : By the end of. the 1990s, state and local government coffers were overflowing; i t wasnlt until the tech bubble .burst that government revenues, sank. . --

Foolish Politics

Republicans should be the @arty of technology, growth and the light hand gf taxation. On this issue some have gotten on the wrong side of.

Given that three out of four Ameficans now access the Internet regulady, this is not a demographic voter group Republicansshould want to 1 unnecessarily antagonize six months before an election. A Web acC&se tax would mean that a:family would gettaxed every time it pays a bill, buys a book, or searches for information on the Internet.

. A compromise is now being negotiated by Sen. John McCain to.extend thelax moratorium on the Internet for four.years. That would be.a',',. 1 . . . good start, but Republicans and pro-technology Democrats should not rest until Internet taxes hav.e gone the yay of the rota,ry phone; the ,

'

ST is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cato:Institute.

~3 LOAD-DATE: April 28,2004 .

'

. .

. _ . . ' F

' I

: : .

. . . .

I . . . .

. . ! :

: I .. ,

' 1

. . . ' each of these principles. . .

b!.im

' I

I ' . .

'. .

, ' I

phonograph and the dodo bird.

. . . .

I ' la,

. .

I . . . . . . . . . . .

'

CoPvriaht 8 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Else& Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed.by Terms & Conditions . Please review them. .

' ' ' .

I

. . . .

f

. .

. -.

I

- . . .

. . I:'

. .

. .

. _ . . .

I

. .

. .

. ,

. .. . I

I

. . . .

. I

. . .

document Links: Start of Document SECTION: '

HEADLINE: .

BY'LINE: BODY:

: LENGTH: . ,

LOAD-DATE:. , . a .. :.

. .

. .

,Copyright 2004 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. ' www. investors.com

, Investor's. Bus-iness Daily _ .

... .

. March 16,2004 Tuesday . . . . .

. .

SECTION: SECTION ISSUES & INSIGHTS; BRAIN TRUST; NATIONAL EDITION; Pg. A15

LENGTH: 750 words

HEADLINE: Administration Should Give Broadband Economy A Call

BYLINE: BY STEPHEN MOORE '

BODY

,.. . . . . . -

. . I

. .

:

. . . .

1 -

, \

. . . . . . . . .

I . .

. .

. .

. . a

' 1 I

. . . ' . ! I ,

While the national press obsessed over the "jobless recovery," the U.S. economy quietly received a major shot in the arm last week. This 'happened when a U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the Federal Communications Commission to scrap regulations that are holding back the, spread of the broadband economy. . ..

I .

.Will the Bush administration finally embrace this victory for telecom deregulation and recognize that this is an opportunity for more jobs and more high-technology investment in this crucial election year?

The stakes here for the economy are huge. This court ruling could usher in a new high-techstock market boom led by tens of billions of dollars of .new broadband investment for such purposes as delivering high-speed Internet to the homes of millions of Americans in the months ahead. Economists estimate that as many as 1.2 million new jobs could result from expanded investment in broadband technology.

'Broadband technoiogy makes Internet service faster and allows us. lo instantly download text, video, music and data: Soon an individual with a PC will be able to practically download' all the information contained in the Library of Congress. Broadband technology has been around for years, but only about.one-third of homes have access.

'

Far Behind '

Those vyithout senrice tend to live in homes in low-inkme areas. Hence, government is unwittingly exacerbating the "digital divide" between the infotmation haves and the information have-nots.

Thanks to pric4 controls and overregulation of the telecommunications industry, America ranks a sickly 11 th in per capita access to '

broadband service - behind countries such as Canada and Iceland. Millions of Americans are spultering around on the infomation superhighway in clunky Model Ts, and the rest of the industrialized world zooms past them in Porsches.

We continue to impose an obsolete regulatory regime on the telecommunications firms that were made worse in many ways by t,he "deregulation" Telecommunicatio.ns Act of 1996.

The FCC requires telephone companies, firms that the regulators expect to invest .$lo0 billion in high-speed fiber optic equipment, to allow competitors to lease their networks at below-market prices. The phone companies have balked at this deal - and for good reason. It is the, equivalent of asking a firm to build a lemonade stand but requiring the owner to let its competitors use it whenever they wish. Those rules are unfair to the investors.

One of the leading policy experts in telecommunications issues is Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute. Huber uses this analogy to explain what has gone wrong in recent years: 'We have a stupefyingly complex labyrinth of rules that regulate the price of everything. It is Hillary-care for the telecom industry."

. .

I

. .

, '

.. . . .

What explains this anti-growth regulatory climate? The answer seems to be that the FCC commissioners still ding to the notion that' .

Wrong. Now with satellite technologies, cable n/ hookups and wireless connections, broadband providers will face intense market competition forces to hold prices low and to serve customers efficiently.

Now the courts have taken a maior step fonvard in liberating this industry from regulations that inhibit the ability of the telephone companies to invest, flourish and better serve businesses and household customers. If this decision is allowed to stand and price controls are finally lifted, the broadband industry can benefit from deregulation in much the same way that energy, trucking and airlines markets were deregulated to help consumers, In each of these industries, .the deregulated environment cut costs to consumers by billions of dollars a year (see chart). Airlinederegulation has created mass air travel in America at cut-rate prices.

broadband is a monopoly service and must be price-regulated. . .

I. .

. .

! . ' . .

. . . I

. .

.. - , 'Span The 'Gap . .

.I ." The same can happen in broadband:Robefi Crandall, the respected regulations economist from the Brookings Insti!ute! geljeves that a more . . - .. . .I

. ' ' sane regulatory regime at the FCC could generate $500 billion a year in economic benefits to the nation over the next.two decadfs. That . _ '

. . means a faster, more! efficient and user-friendly Internet for businesses, students and researchers.

I

. . I '

. . ! : . ._ .

I The Bush administration should seize this opportunity to pump'up growth .and business investment by putting .the FCC on a leash and letting . I C

I

I . . . . . . . . . . I

, . . ,

the free-market system wok to close the digital divide. .. -

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and an eGonomist at the Cat0 Institute.

LOAD-DATE: March 16,2004 '

1

. . I . .

C I . .

'. #I' '

. . _ , 4'. . '

Copyriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a divisik of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights resewed.. , ' ' '

. .

. .

. . . Your use of this service is governed by TeFs & Conditions . . . Please review them.' .. . I ' . ... , '

. . . . . .

w . _

. ... . I

' I

. .I" I

: .

Ps.

I"' I S

. .

I

,

I

. .

. .-

I.'

I

. .

. .

Document. Links:. . Start of Document

SECTION: ' ,

:LENGTH: . . HEADLINE: .

BY CI NE: !. - BODY:

LOAD-DATE: .

. . . I

. . 1 ' .

. . . . .

(I,. : l...

. ' ..

. . 14irn :,J P

I .

I . I II . I

Copyright 2002 Investor's Business Daily,' Inc. &.invesiors.com

Investor's Business Daily .

... . , November 5,2002 Tuesday ' ' . .

I . .

SECTION: SECTION ISSUES 8 INSIGHTS; BRAIN TRUST; NATIONAL EDITION; pg. AI^. .,.. . . .

. . I LENGTH: 835 words '

I;.; ecqnomy- I

. .

QJI HEADLINE: Can Democrats Regain Clout By Copying JFK's Tax Cuts? '

. .

. . 1 r: ,BYLINE: BY STEPHEN MOORE . . .

. . BODY: 'r One of the great mysteries of this political season is why the Democrats have gained no. political traction on the issue of the limping '

pc. Democrats claim that President'Bush has a record that compares with Herbert Hoover's, but the polls show'the public doh? trustthe . . '

e,,, Democrats to fix things anymore than they do. the Republicans. b

I

. .

. .

The problem for the Daschle' Democrats is that they have . . misdiagnosed the economy's ills and their cures are worse than the disease.

I

1.

' I .

I :

I .

.. .

The rallying cry from the Daschle Democrats is "Repeal the'Bush tax cut." But now is the wo& time to be raising taxes, and the tax cut has been the only positive, though modest, policy stimulant to the economy over the past two years.

Economic "Steroids'

high-tech-driven economy. . We should accelerate the Bush tax cut; make the income tax rate cuts effective right away to provide some growth steroid injections for the

. Supplyside tax rate cuts are an economic stimulus because they redue the cost of investing and saving.

. But invehment decisions will' not be made on the basis of promised tax cuts that may be snatched away,at any moment by a ' '

Democrat-controlled Congress. The Democrats in Congress actually are preventing the tax cut from working.

What the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is the series of bearish missteps that have impaired growth and recovery. These include:

* Out-ofcontrol government spending (federal expenditures are up 22% in two years).

'

1 . ._

!

.. . . ** Rising average. tax burdens for 19952007 (from 18% to 21 % of GDP).

** Protectionist trade'policies on timber, farm products and steel.

** Uncertainty about the future of the Bush tax cut.

. . . .

. ** Irresponsible business-bashing by both parties.

To be fair, many of these blunders were committed by Bush and congres$ional.Republicans. But the Daschle Democrats are pathetically devoid of.any economically defensible plan of. their own. . .

What we hear as priorities from the Democrats in Congress are calls for: protectionist trade policies; a new, massive, unfounded entitlement . program to provide prescription drugs for seniors at a cost of perhaps $1 trillion; expanded une,mployment insurance; a higher minimum wage; canceling future tax cuts; and Keynesian prescriptions of more government spending. '

AI Gore recently endorsed a new $100 billion federal spending stimulus plan. AI, the only 'sector of the economy that has been growing of late has been government. Federal seending has soared more than $250 billion over the past two years. How much stimulus do you want?

. More important, what happened to the party of John F. Kennedy pro-growth tax cutters? The Democrats have morphed into a party that reflexively just says "no" to any and all tax cuts to help the economy grow.

,

JFK's Tax Cuts

I

I

. .

I

I I

1

. . . !

. . . I

I .. . .

! . .

. .

: . I

. . .: . .. - . . .

Daschle and.Gore need to recognize JFK cut income'taxes by 30% for rich and poor in the 1960s to hypercharge the Cold War'economy. .

Kennedy was right in 1963 when.he,said ''a rising lide.liAs,all b.oats.",He was right.when he said that "An'economy constrained by high tax': rates wilrnever produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as itwill never create enough jobs and enough economic grewth." . .

Not only did'the 1964 Kenkedytax cut reduce income tax ratesfor all Americans by,30% -- yes, even, for the rich - but JFK also cut the capital gains tax.

Here's what he said,about capital gains taxes back in 1963: !'The tax on capital gains directly affects investment.deasions, the mobility and. flow of risk capital . . . the ease or .difficulty experienced by newventures in obtaining c,apital, and thereby the strength and potential for

History prove's JFK right:

The capital gains cut enacted by a Republican Congress but signed into law by President Clinton 'in 1997 had a profound impact.on the . :' '

economy..

The revenues from the tax surged from $50 billion in 1996 to more than $100 billion in 2000. The venture capital.funding for new high-tech '

firms thatare major innovators and employers of: high wage workers more than doubled.

The stock market soared. ' . '

.

' I . .

. I

.

I

. . . . . . . . . . ' I

.. . .

. . . . . . . . . . I .. . '. #I'

f'l' , . ' . .

growth in the economy." . .

. . . . . . . . I '

. . . . . .

.. . . . ' . _

. .

.. . I

. .

.._ . ' I

Igniting Growth I ,

would ignite in much the same way as Popeye's muscles burst when he sWallows a can of spinach; If we were to marry a capital gains .Fut with a 2 percentage point reduction in the anti-worker 15% payroil ta%,, the might 'of our 'industria' 'base .

Will these tax cuts drain the -treasury of lax cuts that are essential to fund vital public'services? I ' .

Just the opposite. The budget deficit and state budget woes are dueto too little economic growth.

If we can get back to a 4% growth rate, federal revenues over the next decade will grow hy nearly $2 trillion more than they will if eponomic growth remains at 2%.

So my free, unsolicited advice to the Daschle'Democrats is this: ErnbGce the JFK formula for growth., A rising tide really does lift all boats.

Stephen.Moore is president of the Club for Growth. This article is adapted from Mr. Moore's testimony at the Democratic Economic Summit in Washington last month. . . .

1 '

, . . . .

' ,I . . I .

. ,

. . . .

. . I

' I

I . .

LOAD-DATE: November 5,2002 , ' r.' . -.

. Cowriaht GI 2005 LexisNeis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All.rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them.

. - . . . . .

!. I ,

. ..

!

. .

Document Links: Start of' Document SECTION:

, LENGTH: HEADLINE: BYLINE: BODY: LOAD-DATE:

' .

. .

....

' I I . ' . * I . I .. . .

\ . . * . I \ .

Copyright 2002 Investor's Business Daily, inc. Investor's BLrsiness Daily

: September 25,2002 Wednesday, .

SECTION: A; NATIONAL ISSUE; NATIONAL

LENGTH: 808 words

HEADLINE: Will Tax Cuts For Investors 8e Victim Of Deficit Battle?

BYLINE: BY STEPHEN.MOORE Stephen Moore . .

'

,.. .

I .

BODY:

1 . .

I

\

Just a few days ago it seemed that President Bush was on the verge of.endorsing a major jnvestor class t.ax cut to putsome steam back in the ,economy and the stock market. . .

Now.that plan seems to have been hijacked by congressional Republicans, who Mrry tax cuts could drive,up the budget deficit, and Alan .. Greenspan, who fears tax cutswill drive up long-term interlest rates. Don't listen, Mr. President.

'The fax cut critics are dead wrong - especially Greenspan.

History proves that tax cuts have tended to correspond with lower long-term interest rates, not higher rat;.

President Reagan's tax cuts helped cause interest rates to fall from 15% in 1980 to half that level by the time he left'the White House in

Critics complained that Bush's first tax-cut package would &use interest rates to rise.

. ..

1989. . . . .

Instead; rates have:fallen to their lowest levels in decades. If a Bush investment-oriented tax cut were combined'with a modicum of fiscal discipline on the spending side of the federal ledger, interest rates would surely fall -- not rise. Deficit Worries

The budget deficit, which has risen to $160 billion this year, is surely a concern..

. .

. I

But the rise in the debt is being,driven by the absence of economic growth., Tax revenues are flat because investors aren'f'investing; corporations aren't making profits, and wages are stagnant.

A capital gains &t and a more even-handed approa& to taxing dividends would be like delivering CPR to the, moribund financial. markets, which are suffocating from a lack of investment capital. .

Bush can't wait any longer on a tax-cut initigtive. There are some 90 million investor class . . Americans who have lost 'more than $2. trillion in wealth over the past year end a half..

Low interest rates have helped keep the housing market soaring, but it's hard to see how home values can remain so vibrant when Americans have suffered such dramatic losses in their stock portfolios.'

. .

The formula for an ekonornic recovery and a stock market rebound is clear: We need to cut the excessive -- even punitive - tax on

We should: . Immediately cut the capital gains tax on ALL new investments. Eliminate the double taxation of dividends.

investment in America. . '. .

Expand taxLfree IRA accounts to enlarge the pool of savings that entrepreneurs and venture capitalists can draw upon for jobcr&tmg new business ventures. Without new businesses, there'll be no new jobs. . '

White House Meeting

'Two weeks ago I and several other economists in Washington met with Bush's chief economist, Larry Lindsey, to press the case for preasely this kind of investor class tax cut.

We had the backing of some of the smartest economic minds in the country - including Charles Schwab and Steve Forbes.

I I 1

We all agreedthat these investor tax cuts could rally. .. - the market and reverse the malaise . .

The fact that we may be on the eve of fighting a war against Saddam Hussein makes the case for a tax cut all the more persuasive and

An investor tax cut will re-energize our industrial and high-tech sectors. The, last capital gains tax cut in 1997 caused a huge bursfin

I

. . .

. . .. ' .. . . urgent. , , . .

entrepreneurial activity and a surge in venture capital funding.

. -- . .

. . . .

Reagan cut taxes during the most frigid days of the Cold War. -- which oniy increased America's economic and:'military superiority and . contributed to success. '

Some cowardly congressional Republicans are spooked by Democratic Senator M.ajonty Leader Tom Oaschle's, anticipated d&s warfare rhetoric. ,

Americans support pro-investor tax cuts. By some estimates, two-thiids of the voters who go to the polls in November wll be' stock owners: They don't, buy into the greed and envy attacks of the Daschle Ds. Who Are Those "Rich'?

I

., . '

' 1 a , . !I

Butwhy? . , .

As the data clearly show, 70% ofthose who have capital gains. have.incomes below $100,000, and four of 1.0 have immes below $5~1000. That doesn't sound too rich to: me. .

Bush must stop listening lo the irrational advice of Alan Greenspan and Tom Daschle, both of whom are opposed to tax cuts -- if for different reasons.

Instead he should focus on the bolfom-line economic interests of the people who elected him -- voter capitalists who are 'desperate for a

These are patriotic Americans who haven't sold out since 9-1 1. They have kept their. investments and their confidence in America. The suffered losses for reasons outside their control. They should be rewarded.

I stock market rally. . . I I . .I. I .

If Bush will figpt for a middle-class investor tax cut with the same zeal and persuasiveness that he has fought the'terrorists, he will become . . politically invincible and will be reelected in a landslide. . . Maybe that's the real reason Daschle so adamantly opposes a tax cut.

is president of the Club for Growth and a member of the Investor's Business Daily Brain Trust.

I

LOAD-DATE: September 25,2002 I

. . . '. .. Comriqht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this seyice is governed by Terms & Conditions. Please review them.

r

. .

" 1 :

. .

I

I

I

I 1 I;:

E r

c v4

I I t I I I t I I I

. . r...

. .. .. .

Oocument Links: Start of 'Document

~ LENGTH:. . . . .

. .. I .

I4i.h &) P

SECTION: .

HEADLINE:' , . .

BYLINE: . .

BODY: LOAD-OAT E:,

I - I . . , .. . I I

' \; '

. . ' Copyright 2002 Investor's Business Daily, lnc.

Investor's Bllsiness Daily

. . ' June 11,2002, Tuesday . .

. . . . . . . . .

. .

SECTION: A; Pg. 16 '

LENGTH: 856 words

HEADLINE: Gov't Spending Grows Faster Than U.S.' Private Economy.

BYLINE: By STEPHEN MOORE, Investor's Business Daily

' ,

.... . . .

, I

. !

1 -

. . \

. . . .

I

' D . . .

. .

: " I .

. . BODY: .- . Last month the Commerce Department declared that the gross domestic product grew an impressive 5.6%, thus signaling that America is in official economic recovery. But is it really? Amid all the hoopla about the impressive growth was one sobering detail that most economists .overlooked. The fastest growth component of the economy was not housing, technology, retail or construction. It was government spending. Government purchases are up,by more than 9% this,year, while the re'st of the economy grew at only half that pace. We're now in the third. straight year where government budgets have outpaced pTivate sector expansion. ln.2001, for example, government at city, state arid federal ,levels g%w by 6%. The private sector barely kept its head above water, growing by an anemic 0.5%. From an economic recovery standpoint, there could hardly be worse news. Real wealth creation is driven by private busineses, entrepreneurs and investors, not by putting more .

government bureaucrats to work. Recession Or Not? There's a lot of argument whether the U.S. economy ever sank into a,n official recession - defined as two straight quarters of negative growth - last year. Economist Larry Kudlow has pointed out that, yes, we were in a private sector recession. In the second quarter the private economy shrank 0.2%'and in the third.quarter it fell an additional 3.3%, while, our recession-proof government continued to flourish;.My estimate is that federal spending will rise $150 billion to $200 billion this year, more than the entire GDP of many countries. Just the increase in government spending in 2002 will be more than twice the entire amount of money raised for the ailing venture capital industry. What's wrong Mth this, picture? Like a retired swimsuit model, the U.S. economy is putting on weight in all the wrong places. We are pickpocketing dollars'from business owners, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and investors, and allowing those funds to be spent by Congress and government agencies instead. From an economic-efficiency standpoint, this makes about as .much sense as. having Britney Spears pinch-hit for,Barry Bonds. Most Expensive Ever This is a broad-based expansion of government. In the past 12 months, Congress has passed the most expensive education spending bill ever, the most expensive farm welfare bilbever and it will soon enact the most expensive foreign aid bill ever. It, also wants to pass the costliest new entitlement program - taxpayer-financed ' .

prescription drug benefits for seniors with a potential'price tag of $400 billion over 10 years - since LBJ created Medicare 35 years ago. All of. this is hbppening on top of the $, 100 billion in extra funds that Congress has rightly devoted to the war on terrorism. But even he*, Congress has larded anti-terrorism spending bills that are crucial to our national security with billions of dollars of pork spending for projects ranging 'from skating rinks to casino ind.ustry bailouts. Some economists, still. slavishly devoted to John Maynard Keynes' bankrupt'Depression-era

'

theories, look at the economic numbers and say: Thank goodness the government stepped in when it was needed to keep the economy moving. But this is bunk. Government gtowth does not in any way boost private business activity. It crowds out private adivity. The government spending .binge is. one of the most dangerous and bearish indicators of the,American economvs direction. We're foolishly following in the Keynesian footsteps of Argentina and Japan, two of the nations .with the biggest bloat in government in recent years. Government didn't stimulate those economies, it plunged them.from'recession to depression. In turn, trillions of dollars ofwealth have been destroyed. Nobel economist Milton Friedman famously taught us all many years ago that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.: The real resources in the economy captured by government for additional public-sector spending can come from only three sou'ms: taxes, debt or inflation. The buildup of any one of these funding sources can have influenza'virus effects on a capitalistic economy. In the 1970s, ell three accelerated at once, and the U.S. industrial economy collapsed until rescued by Ronald Reagan's supply-side and limitegovernment ideas. Big Government Returns .It is 'a strange quirk of statistics that'we even count an .increase in government spending as a plus for the economy. This convention of counting government spending as an asset rather than a liability creates the illusion that bigger government means more .

prosperity. Where on Earth has that ever been the case? Certainly not the former USSR, East Germany or now Japan. So no, we must not .applaud this re-emergence of the era of.8ig Government. The $2.2 trillion federal enterprise is an anchor on growth, not a sail. Its burgeoning budget has arguably 'became the single greatest threat to a sustained recovery, stock market revival and return to the virtuous ,free market-induced prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s. Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and president of the Club for Gr0W.h.

LOAD-DATE: June I I, 2002

:

.

.

. '

.. .

. . CopvrhM 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rghts reserved. Your use of this senrice is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them;

hi ,

i

i b

I

. .

, .

I

I 1

Document Links:' '

Start of Document , SECTION:

I .' LENGTH: ' I

'HEADUNE::

I S . BYLINE: ! I

'BODY: . LOAD-DATE:

. .

1.

' .; - . .

a . .! !'

. . ' I

.. .. 1

. .

Copyright 2002 Tnvestc$s Bus/ness paily, ,lnc.

February 26,,8002, Tuesday

, Investor's~usiness Daily ', , '. '

, . ': . .

I '

I 1, 1 SECTION: A; Pg. 16 I

. .

. .

LENGTH: 7.29'words

HEADLINE: Got Stimulus? Broadband Bill Would Beef Up Frail €conomy

BYLINE: By STEPHEN MOORE, Investor's 6ushess.Daity . .

' , . " ' PC.

I . 1;; BODY: . .

. .

I: . ! . .

. . . _ .

. I

. . -.

5. , . I

I

. . , . . . . -. .

'. . . ' I

.VI With Congress stalemated on a tax-cut economic stimulus plan and the White House considering approval of a dreadful prbtectionist

growth. No industry needs more intelligent help than the embattled telecommunications sector, where profits and investment hJ bill, the jittery financial markets are Seeking any positive signs that Washington will take produdive'action to help jump-start economic

k' economy as a whole, and this industry in particular. If approved, the Tauzin-Dingell bill has the potential over the next decade to bring vaporized. That's why a vote in Congress this week on deregulation of the broadband-infrastructure carries such heavy significance for the

high-speed Web service to nearly every U.S. home. Broadband service is the Mach 4-speed Internet technology that will bring to Americans f'd the next gener tion of Web services. It could transform the Web from a device for exchanging e-mail and checking stock quotes into a tool

that will link ell%usinesses in an e-commerce Web, let users quickly download video or music on demand and give rise to products and ' I

I I I I I I I I I

applications we can only dream of today. Economist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Insfitution, and a top deregulation scholar, calculates that if we can accelerate broadband deployment, the value to the US. economy could reach $500 billion a year. That's more than the entire economies of most nations. Very few actions that Congress could take - short of scrapping the income tax for a consumption tax or privatizing Social Security - could deliver those size benefits to workers and consumers. Broadband deregulation would seem to be a no-brainer. But this issue has become the mother of all political brawls, pitting AT8T against the Baby Bells, including Vetizon and BellSouth. Both sides have spent tens of millions on lobbying and fatuous TV ads. The truth is, there's no angel in this fight. The-good n m is that if Congress shows some common sense, there can be clear-cut winners here - American consumers and businesses, tens of millions of whom lack broadband access simply because of a regulatory regime that prevents access to the infrastructure. elmost eight of 10 homes and businesses still use clunky dial-up technology to access the Web. Broadband technology is more than a decade old, and still is a rarity in most areas. This makes no sense. It's as if we're still watching black-and-white lV. A hallmark of the U.S. era of high-tech innovation has been to spread the technological breakthroughs to the great middle class in short order. Why the still-lingering digital divide between the information haves and have-nots? Because outdated government regulation is stiffing the private-sector investment needed to build the network. Technology analyst George Gilder argues that today's regulation "privatizes the risk and socializes the benefit." Here's how it works: When a phone company risks its own money to wire homes and businesses to broadband, the federal government forces it to open its network to competitors at money-losing, government-set rates. This prevents the original investors from capturing the full value of the risk-taking expenditure. A predictable result has been the collapse in telecom investment over the past 18 months. In 2001, telecom investment contracted by $75 billion, a 15% decline. That's one of the biggest reasons the industry shed over 31 7,000 jobs last year - the largest job loss for any industry ever recorded in a single year. By some estimates, it will cost telecom companies some $200 billion of added broadband investment to lay down the cables to bring this technology into most homes and businesses. How can this investment be accelerated? One answer is for Congress to let businesses write off their mgga-investments the year they're made. It also must create a fair-minded regulatory structure that allows those firms that make the investments to reap financial rewards. This means eliminating free-riding'competitor access without fair payment. Tauzin-Dingell may be the best chance to close the digital divide and ensure that the U.S. maintains its commanding competitive edge in global communications into the future. It might also be the only chance Congress has this year to pass a genuine economic stimulus bill. Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

LOAD-DATE: Februav 26,2002

Comria ht 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them.

. , ,

. .. 1

I

. .

. 1

. .

:Document Links: 'Start of Document SECTION: '

LENGTH: HEADLINE: '

BODY: BYLINE: .

LOAD-DATE: -

. . I .

. . I .

,.li&i. :I.J 1'

I

' \, .

. I . . , , , . I

\

. . \ ' .

S I \ ' Copyright 2001 Investor's Business Daily; Inc, Investor's Business Daily '

. . . . September 18,2001 . . . .

SECTION: A; Pg. 18 ..

LENGTH: 826 words,

HEADL1N.E: Note To Congress: Make.The.Enemy Sacrifice Instead Of The Citizenry. . .

I. ', . .

'

I .

BYLINE: By, Investor's, Business Daily , a .

. . .BODY

. .

I

. .

. . 1 1 . '

. .

I . . . .

. .

B y Stephen Moore Polls indicate that we.Americans are almost universally united in our desire for the federal bvemment to expend whatever resources are required to exact Fetribution against those nations and fanatical organizations that have assaultedthe U.S. in such a mindless. and terrible fashion. But this protracted war against terrorism cannot be won',merely with military weapons and strategic strikes. Last .week's hijackings were not simply acts of political terrorism and religious fanaticism: They were also a tactical assault intended to cripple our . , :

system of free market capitalism. The World Trade Center was the ideal target for the terrorists and their evil ideology, because it Was the very beacon of America's economic muscle. America's Industrial Might Congress acted swiftly in approving the billions of dollars necessary for a massive military response against terrorism. But where is the economic response? The U.S. economy was already teetering on the . .. verge of recession before these planes struck their targets. Now a recession is almost a certainty; The Only issue is: How.long and.painful will it.be? It could get very ugly fast. i f we allow our econbmy to falter, this may be handing.our diabolical enemies their greatest &tory of all. A recurring lesson of American history is that we have won every major war because we had industrial might that simply oveyhelmed our foes. Rapid economic growth was instrumental in winning the Cold War. Ronald Reagan proved brilliantly in the 1980s that we can, if we simply get our economic policies aligned coriectly, afford to pay for guns and butter, whereas our enemies with their inferior economic systems must choose between the two. Yet some analysts propose raising taxes, which would hamper our industrial capacity to finance'the waitime spending. We shouldn't talk of economic sacrifice at a time.like thls. To paraphrase the great Gen. Patton, let's make our enemies sacrifice, not our fellow Americans. We know what it takes to ignite rapid growth. The issue is whether we can lay aside petty debates about class

.warfare and "fairness" and distributional politics. In this time of crisis, all Ameecans will benefit from growth: our soldiers, our farmers, our . union workers, our'shareholders and especially our children and grandchildren. An Economic Program Here are the'steps that Congress ' '

. should.take as part of this Declaration of Economic War: First, cutthe capital gains tax in half, retroactive to Sept. 11. Nothing else would. give battered Wall Street the boost it needs as effectively as this measure. This will immediately help entrepreneurs find seed capital for their. new businesses. It will also. help reverse the bear market in stocks by immediately increasing the after-!ax rate of return on all equities.

.. Second, immediately expense all capital purchases by business. This would jump-start our moribund manufacturing sector. For more than a . year, businesses, especially.manufacturers, haven't been investing ,in new factories, equipment, technology, R&D and other big-ticket

'

expenditures that promote expansion of output and higher worker productivity. The budgetary cost of expensing capital purchases by ' . business is about $80 billion a year. But the cost of recession is a lot higher than that. Third, roll back the regulatory regime. For example, .

the lawsuit against one of America's greatest corporations, Microsoft, should be ended through 'a declaration by the president. Four,' prohibit .

monopoly oibpricing by OPEC. President Bush must declare that freedom-loving nations must not profiteer .in the war against terrorism. This . is especially cruaal'for two reasons: First, high oil prices are like a tax on American businesses and consumers, and thus undermine our ability to wage this war. Second,.we know that almost all terrorist groups are funded by windfall monopoly oil profas extract.ed by OPEC

' nations. The single most useful act'of cooperation by the Saudis, Ihe Kuwaitis, the VenEuelans and other nonrogue oil exporting nations would be to dramatically increase oil production to drive the price down to the $15-$20 a barrel range, which still .gives these oil-producing nations a healthy profit. Victory Over The Enemy Bush and Congress acted within a week to authorize the first stages of a military plan to '

defeat terrorism. Every day that our stock market plunges further into bearish territory; every day that consumer confidence sinks; every day that the dollar loses value; every day that more layoffs and bankruptcies are declared is a victory for the terr0rist.s who are trying to destroy our way of life - in much the same way as if they had reduced to rubble another one of our towering industrial icons on Wall Street. Restoring . prosperity to our economy - quickly - would be one of.the sweetest forms of revenge against those who hate us. Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

'

'

LOAD-DATE: September 18,2001

CoDvriclht 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights resenred. . .. .

Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions. Please review them.

1 I ..;

I

. . .

I

I

. -

Document Links,: ' Start.of Document SECTION: LENGTH: I

HEADLINE:

BODY: . ! I

. BYLINE:'

LOAD-DATE:. : I ..

. . . .. - . .

?: ' ,

. _ .

. . . . I

. .

.. .. I

. .

Copyright 2OO~l'nve$or's Business Dqily, Inc. Investoe6,Business Daily ' '. " .

I ' ': J~ne.27~2001 .

. . . .

. .

SECTl0N:A;'Pg. 18 ,

LENGTH:.,803 words

HEADLINE: Nothing Ventured:. High Cap Gains 'Tax Rate Stalls Critical Investment

BYLINE: By, Investor's Business Daily . ... '

BODY: . .

I

a

' , I

. .

. .

. .

I . .

.. .

.. - . . . . , . . . .

. . . . . :

. _

. .

. .

. . 9 I . .

. I . . ,

. .. . .I

. . 9 , . . . . .

. . . . . . -. .

. .

,

' I

By Stephen Moore Lord, what fools these mortals be! The majority of economists, politicians and journalists keep insisting that the prbblem - . with the U.S. economy is weak cohsumer spending. They're plain wrong. The real economic mala'dy is, declining, investment. If you do Y . . believe me, just take'a hard look at the data; The venture capital industry is suffering from drought conditions. In 2000, financiers pro&ed $ . . .

87 billion of high-risk capital funding for'entrepreneurial start-up companies. But over the past 18, months, the pace of venture capital funding has plummeted more than 60%. Venture Capital Funding Plunges. Preliminary estimates from a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers are that for the first .half of 2001 , venture capital funding.will be less than $20 billion. It's no coincidence that that's almost exactly the percentage . .decline in the pasdaq from its high of 5000 last year. Venture capital is the seed cam for high-tech start-ups. These are arguably the most. . essential invested funds in our information-age economy because they finance high-risk- but potentially highlpayoff enterprises. Most every

'

successful telecommunication, pharmaceutical, aeronautics,.electronics, software and semiconductor firm started in the US. over'the past '

20 years was nurtured in its infancy stage by angel investors and venture capitalists. In some cases, .venture capitalists have hatched whole new high-tech industries. Now that funding is vanishing, entrepreneurs' are starved for financing, which is preventing 'promising new ventures from lifting off the planning board table. This is the real long-term haunting threat to the American economy, as opposed to the slight slump in consumer spending that so many of the academic and Wall Street economists keep fretting over. What have policy:makers done to try to I . ,

help nurse the venture funding industry back to good health? So'far, surprisingly, nothing. What could be done? Well, we know from the past 20 or so years of experience thatventure capital funding levels are highly sensitive .to the capital gains tax.rate..New commitments toventure capital firms accelerated from a piddling $70 million in 1977, when the top marginal rate was 49%, to $5.1 billion by 1983, when the rate had, .dropped to 20%. This was a 7,00O%.rise in .capital raised for new companies, A Congressional Blunder Then in 1986 Congress did a very stupid thing: It raised the capital gains tax from 20% to 28%. The growth spurt in these .high-risk pools of capital stalled. In 1.986, real'venture capital funding .for promising young firms was $4.19 billion, but this level fell to $1.41 billion in 1991 - a two-thirds reduction. In 1986, 1,512 . firms received funding. That number had fallen to a minuscule 800 by 1.991 Then after the 1997 capital gains cut there was amearly fivefold .

power surge in venture financing - until the recent downtum..This inverse relationship between the capital gains tax and the level of . riskcapital financing makes intuitive sense. If you're going to risk a lot of your money on a long-shot investment - which is what almost all . ,

entrepreneurial efforts are - you want to make sure that if your horse comes in, the Internal Revenue Service won't snatch, away your profit. In ,

an ideal world, of course, there wouldn't be any capital gains tax becaue these funds have already been taxed once, when the original funds .were earned by the investor. The economist Art Laffer says the actual optimal capital gains rate is negative, but let's not get greedy. In any . case, the higher the capital gains tax, the lower the after-tax rate of return on venture capital investment dollars. Cutting Capital Gains Tax Is Key If the tax becomes too confiscatory, people will simply invest in bonds or relatively reliable blue chip stocks; That's what's happening '. .

now. The ratio of the Dow to the Nasdaq is a convenient, if imprecise, way,to measure investors' willingness to take risks. That ratio has risen ,

a lot in the past 18 months. Risk aversion is the reigning sentiment, on Wall Str.eet these, days. If we.were to cut the current Capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15%, and make that cut effective on July 1 , as Rep. Pat Toomey, Rea., has proposed, this would immediately help revive this now-dormant sector of the financial markets. Toome,y's worried that "we still haven't done enough in Congress to accelerate the economy in the near term." He's right. A capital gains tax cut would provide exactly that spark - and it would cost nothing, bedause, as history proves, rate cuts pay,for themselves. This leaves one outstanding question: What in the world are the politiaans waiting for? Stephen Moore is . president of Washington, D.C.-based Club for Growth, a political action committee which supports free-market candidates.

LOAD-DATE: June 27 , 2001

.

.

,

,

. . .

.

. Cowriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a.division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this setvice is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them.

. _ I

. .

. .

I I t 1. I I I I I. I

. . :I ,

Doc.ument Links: Start of. Document ,

SECTION: ; ' LENGTH

BY LINE: . : HEADLINE: ' ' .

BODY: - LOAD-DATE: '

. .

I

. . . .

. Copyright 2001 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.'; Investor's Business Daily

. January 9,2001 . .

. . . . . . . ' SECTION: A; 'Pg. 24.'

LENGTH: 678 words ,

HEADLINE: Eroding Competition: The SEC.Could Give Nasdaq A Big Edge Over Many Investors . ;

' ,

.,.., . .

I

. .

. . . .

1 -. . .

I

I . . .

. I

' I .

. .

. . . . . . . .

, ' . I .

I . BYLINE By, Investor's Business Daily. , .

BODY: . .

. .

.. . /By Stephen Moore A hallmark of the U.S. financial system is near-perfect competition. Our multitrillion dollar markets 'have made us all price.takers - whether we're trading billion dollar accounts at Goldman Sachs or cre,ating.our.own small savings nest eggs. American capital markets .work with superefficiency because investors, here and abroad have full confidence that the 'system isn't rigged against them. This co.nfidence may be shaken by a .pending decision expected from the Secu,rities and Exchange,Commission this week. The SEC is poised to approve an anti-competition plan that would allow the Nasdaq to move into the trading realm. The Nasdaq 'is, at presentjsimilar to a. regulated utility. It is a franchise worth an estimated $200 million a year for quoting the stock prices for some 5,000 cbmpanies 'kith an .estimated net value of $ 4 trillion. Nasdaq-traded companies include Cisco, Microsoft and Intel. The exchange has monopoly authority for , '

listing stock prices, a task it has performed with great skill for years to the benefit of investors. But if the SEC gives the Nasdaq the authority to conduct trades as well, the Nasdaq will have a huge advantage over other traders. This would particularly hurt small investors. If the Nasdaq wants to move into trading, it should give up its exclusive right to operate the sto& trading bulletin board. To allow the Nasdaq to do both activities would be like setting up a silent auction system wherein one of the bidders is given the opportunity to look at all the other bids before'making his own. The referee in'the game.must not also be a participant. The Nasdaq proposal, .called SuperMontage, would also rank investors' orders to buy or sell their stocks. But not all orders would be created equal. Small investors, who buy and sell securitieC through stock trading systems where no middleman is required - called electronic communications networks or ECNs - would have their orders .

pushed to the back of the line. This could force them to buy at higher prices or sell at lower ones. The orders,from big Wall Street securities firms like Morgan Stanley could jump ahead of investors trading through ECNs, like lnstinet and Archipelago. Why should this matter to investors? Becake'it's estimated that the ECNs save investors more than $ 1 billion a year, and they offer stock buyers and traders the.best .

price at-least half the time. Not surprisingly, the ECNs have loudly protested this proposed an?i-competiiive arrangement. Archipelago .CEO Gerald Putnam warns that the SuperMontage plan would "cause substantial harm to competitive forces in the marketplace for

I

. '

.,

'

. .

over-thp,munter securities." These firms have a lot to lose given that they trade tens of billions of dollars a year in Nasdaq stocks. But other impartial commentators have raised concerns. The Consumer Federation of America opposes the plan,'which it describes as "investor unfriendly." Barbara Roper of the CFA maintains that the Nasdaq scheme could harm investors by pulling business away from the ECNs and thus reducing the liquidity of the-market. "We are disturbed by the degree to which SuperMontage, as currently proposed, would discourage aggressive quote competition by accommodating and even encouraging market participants to trade ahead of previously displayed customer limit orders that set a new best price." Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm has taken a dim view of the proposal as well. But will SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt? The Nasdaq has a statutory obligation to remain absolutely "neutral with respect to all market centers, market makers and private firms." The SuperMontage plan appears to violate that principle. The SEC and Congress should be hyperaggressive in maintaining the competitive nature of our capital markets. The new Nasdaq proposal would squelch, rather than expand, competition. It's hard to see how the people the SEC was first and foremost created to protect - mom and pop investors - could possibly benefit. Stephen M o o r e is president of the Club for Growth.

- -

. . LOAD-DATE: January 09! 2001 .

ComriqM (9 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier lnc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

' .

. I . .

I . .

. .

I

. .

1

. .

I 1

I ' . . . . .

I ., I

. Document Links:, Start of'Document SECT1 ON: LENGTH: I I

'HEADLINE: BYLINE: ' I

BODY: LOAD -DAT E :

I , - I

. . . . . . .: -

.I ' . ' I

.. .. I

. . . b1.11.

Copyright 2000 InveStor'S Business Daily, lnc. Investolcs pusiness Daily . . 8 ' .

, ' I

. . Octo@kr 19, ,2000

1

-. . , .

SECTION: A; Pg. 32 .. .

. ' 1 LENGTH:. 693 words . .

HEADLINE: Gore's Envy Poli?icsi He Hits The Rich; Even As They Pay Most Of The Taxes _. .

BYLINE: By, Investor's Business Daily

80DY: . . ... . . By Stephen Moore Whenever Democrats get really desperate, they roll out their arsenal of class$varfare weapons. On the campaign trail, AI' Gore continues to rail against George Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest 1 %. Isn't it strange that the only group you can 'legally discrimi te. .. against in America today is made up of the wealthiest and most productive of our citizens? The good news is that the more Gore assa '4 Its the Bush tax cut, the higher Bush'rises in the polls. But class warfare is a cancer cell, and the Bush campaign. needs to,launch a much more. vigorous counter-attack against greed-and-envy politics. The Bush team must argue that class warfare is fundamentally un-American, subvertingthe honored American ideal that success and reward are interlinked. The vast majority of those in the top 1% are rich beckuse of .hard work, not luck. More than two out of three Americans on the Forbes 400 list are self-made men. Most of those who fall in the top 1 % of ' .

wealth are people who've made the rest of our lives better by giving us goods and sehices we want and willingly pay for. Unlike Gore and ,

Dick Gephardt, most Americans view the wealth creators of our society with.adrniraiion, not antipathy. A recent poll finds that a larger percentage of Americans have greater respect for Bill'Gates than Bill Clinton. As he did in Tuesday's' debate, Bush should continue to remind Americans that the tax burden is carried disproportionately by the people Gore is attacking. The top 1% make 17% of the money in this economy, but they pay 33% of the income taxes. How is that fair? The top 5% make 33% of the income, but pay 52% of the taxes. .

Meanwhile,.the bottom 50% pay less than 5% of the income taxes. Finally, with the stock market in the doldrums of-late and the gieat . ' '

investor class of Americans, getting increasingly nervous about the declining value of their asset holdings, tax cuts should b.e vigorously defended as a proven way to keep the prosperity on track; History proves that tax rate reductions typically generate more ewnomic growth, more wealth creation and thus more tax payments by the affluent. There were threeperiods of tax rate reductions in the US. in the 20th century - during the 192Os, 1960s and 1980s. Each time tax rates were cut, the economy soared and tax colle'ctions from the wealthiest.l% of Americans soared. In the 1920s and 1960s, the economy grew by nearly 4% per yeAr.and tax collections, especially those paid by the . wealthy, more than doubled. After the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, the income tax share paid by the top 1% rose from 1.6% in 1980 to 26% by 1990, according to the Tax Foundation. Total tax revenues after the 1980 tax cuts doubled from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion by 1990. One of the greatest economists and social philosophers of the past two denturies was Henry George. Here is one of my favorite passages from the great author. It was written more than 100 years ago, but it has great relevance to today's political debate: "Taxes operate upon energy and industry, and skill and thrift, like a fine upon those qualities. If I have worked harder and built myself a good house while you have been contented to live in a hovel, the tax gatherer now comes annually to make me pay a penalty for my energy and industry, by taxing me more than you. If I have saved while you wasted, I am taxed, while you are exempt. If a man builds a ship, we make him pay ,for his industry as though he has done injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes the tax collector upon it, as though, it were a public nuisance; if a factory be erected, we levy upon it an annual sum that would go far toward making a handsome profit. "We say we want capital, but if . anyone accumulates it, we charge him for it as'though we were giving him Q privilege. We punish with a tax the man who wvers barren fields with ripening grain, we fine him who builds machinery or drains a swamp." Somebody please get this in the hands of George Bush. There is no more eloquent defense of his tax plan. Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and an adjunct fellow at the Cat0 Institute.

.

.

. . I

LOAD-DATE: October 19,2000

Cowriaht 9.2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights resewed. Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please .review them. .

. .

-...

:.- , a ' '

' I

Document Links: . . , '

, LENGTH:, . ,*iru :I.J I*

Start of Document SECTION: .

1 . HEADLINE: ,

BYLINE : BODY:

' I - I . . , ., . I

\; ' LOADDATE:,

. . I , \ '

. . ' Copyright 2000 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.

. . Investor's Business Daily

. . : : ' August22,2000 ,

. . . . . . . .

SECTION: A; Pg. 14 '

LENGTH: 684 words ? ' ,

. P ' .

HEADLINE: An' U,ninvited Guest: Will'The Ghost Of Keynes Hang Over Fed. Meeting?. . .

BYLINE: By, Investor's Business Daily . ,

I

. .

I '

' . I 1 . '

1 . ' .

I

I

' I

I ' , I

1

.. . BODY ' By Stephen Moore and Roman Lyniuk The Federal Reserve meeting scheduled for Tuesday is certain to address the widespread perception that the United States is moving toward an inflationary precipice. The Fed's objective is to ward off this threat with interest-rate hikes. Never mind that the Keynesian economics underlying this strategy has been utterly discredited. High wages and low inflation are not at all incompatible. Indeed, there is no such thing as wage inflation. Inflation is too much money chasing too few,goods. As long as wages increase at a rate lower than increasesin productivity, which is the Rresent trend, there will be no inflation. No sensible doctrine purports that low unemployment and prolonged economic growth above any level must necessarily result in inflation. Yet Alan Greenspan and his governors monitor nervously what they call an "Output Gap Model." The gap between 4% and 6% economic growth is viewed by them as unsustainable, and would necessitate proactive interest rate increases to slow the economy to sustainable levels. They fear that output differential will spark supply and demand imbalances - an assumption connected to Keynesian economic theory, .which asserts an ironclad trade-off between economic.growth and inflation. But this analysis is wrong. As inflation drops closer to zero, economic growth accelerates and the level of unemployment drops. Lower levels of inflation have the same effect as a. tax cut. Economic growth doesn't cause high inflation. On the contrary; it'exists because inflation has declined. Exuberant stock prices are not the problem. An irrational Fed policy, however, cguld become .a major one. By threatening the, financial markets with inteTest:rate hikes, the' Fed is in danger of damaging the real economy and the creation of jobs and wealth. Proactive monetary and fiscal policies tend to exacerbate the economic boom and. bust cycles, whereas" economies that are not fine-tuned or micromanaged by central planners sustain higher economic growth and lower levels of inflation, without exception. It wasn*t long.ago that James Baker, treasury secretary under Ronald Reagan, attempted to engineer a lower dollar to correct the trade imbalance with Europe and Japan. His understanding of economics led him to, the,conclusion that the dollar would have to be . ' aggressively devalued to return the nation to an equilibrium.of trade'. Losing his patience and.temper, Baker warned the Europeans and Japanese that if they didn't start importing more American goods, he would devalue the dollar significantly. Fund managers took him. at his word. Fdced with the possibility of significant devaluation in all their assets priced in dollars, they decided to sell on that disastrous Monday in October 1987. Like. Baker, GEenspan is acting in what he believes to be the national interest. But the Fed chairman has no business .

targethg stock ,prices. A humble. economist would conclude that the stock market is a measure of'economic success. The 'movement of ' ,'

prices tells him everything he needs to know about the health of a market economy. In an inflationary environment, the dollar would be .

declining along with the price of bonds and stacks. Gold and commodity prices would be going up. The magnitude and rise of adet prices in the4Jnited States, then, is a reflection of the magnitude and success of the underlying economy. Would that the Fed recalled Milton Friedman's obsenration that inflation "is a monetary phenomena, in every country and at all times.'' Instead, the Fed adheres to a defunct set of Keynesian economic principles. Consider where those principles got us in the 1970s. Th.ey severely debilitated the country with :double-digit inflation and unemployment. Keynesians set out to save capitalism from itself and ended up cripp1ing.k It is the growth.of this hubris of centralized planning.that really needs to be arrested. Stephen Moore is president of The Club for Growth in Washington, D.C. Roman Lyniuk is a hedge fund manager at Atlantis Capital Markets and a member of The Club for Growth.

*

. . LOAD-DATE: August 22,2000

Copyright Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them.

. . . . . .

. .

.. .

. . . . ._

. . . . : I . . !

. .

I

I

.Document Links '

Start of Document SECTION: LENGTH: ' 8 .

I

I I .

I

. . *I. .

. . . . . . . .

.: .-!

, . !. ' I' I .

. . . . . . . . . I

. .

.I . . . ' I

... I

. . . . . . .

. . . .

' ball I .

. . . . I . . . . . Copyright 2004 News.-b$brld Communicattons, I'nc. ' . . The.Washlhgton Times

' December 15,'2004 Wednesday. . . . . . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A15 '

. . . LENGTH: 817 words . . .

HEADLINE: FCC broadband disconnect , . . . .

. .

. . 1 ,

. . . . . . .

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

BODY: I . I

I . . . . . . .

. . I

. . ! _ . . . .

. .

. . . .

President'6ush has called for universal broadband by 2007. That's a critical goal, since there are-more than a dozen countries. that have ,

greater Internet access for its citizens and businesses than we do. B,ut does the White House'understand . . that his own Federal Communications. Commission is' inhibiting this goal?

Specifically, the FCC is going to decide this week whether to promulgate new regulations- that would allow the competitors of the incumbent telephone.companies - the "Baby Bells" - to have access to the infrastructure that the phone cqmpanies built with billions of dollars'of private. investment capital: Yes, of course, competition is a desirable goal. But if the.government mandates that the privately financed infrastructure must be shared by all competitors, who will make the initial investments in the first place?

Telecom-infrastructure development is absolutely crucial for U.S. economic growth. This is an industry with plans to invest upward.of $1001 billion io new generation fiber optic communications networks, which is good news for workers, technology businesses and homeowners who need to be hooked up to high-speed Internet.

' . . , .

I

. . . I

In many ways, Michael K. Powell's FCC has delayed this dynamic investment process. The FCC remaini fixated on a reregulation model of telephone and Internet communications, when the very intent of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to inspire deregulation and a pm-consumer, survival of the economically fittest model.

From the perspective of the rule of law, the Constitution prohibits an uncompensated taking of property, which is what these regulations would in effect mandate. The idea behind the original 1996 legislation was to allow new start-up telecom companies to have some access to existing networks, so they could reach a stage of economic maturity that they were capable of competing on their own. After eight years, it is certainly time to allow these upstart competitors, some of which succeeded and many which still are not profitable, to sink or swim.

Since 1996, the FCC has produced three sets of rules to regulate telecommunications access. Each has been rejected by either, the D.C. Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. Each time, the courts provided guidelines for a new iteration of the rules and, each time, the FCC produced a revision that failed to meet those guidelines.

The courts have already admonished the FCC that its previous attempts indicate an "unwillingness to adhere to prior judicial rulings." Yet reports suggest that the latest attempt is an instant replay of what has gone before.

I

One problem with the FCC's latest regulatory proposal is that it misunderstandsthe nature of competition. The courts have told the FCC repeatedly (and correctly) that a competitive market is defined by whether competition is possible - not whether competition is actually taking place. Gatorade dominates the sports drink market, not because it's a monopoly with barriers to.entry, but because no other company can make a better thirst quencher. A company may come to dominate a competitive industry simply because it makes a better product, not because it is restraining trade and competition.

,

The FCC rules' being proposed, to ensure cornpetition border on the absurd, The FCC is considering a regulatory regime,that would create a telecommunications-competition analysis ofevery commercial office building in the United States. ,This would take a new army of regulators to enforce and adjudicate. This kind of central planning seems to be precisely, the opposite ,of what'a dynamic, information-aae industry . ' .

A better approach is to let the free market work its course. If competitors wish to hook up to existing networks, let the market set the .price. Right now, telecom competitors to the phone companies can connect to the incumbent's network using a service that has existed since before the 1996 Telecom.Act was passed. The FCC, instead, wants a price-control regime under which regulators decide a fair market value. These prices willcertainly be.discounted well below fair-market iates. The cost 10 wnsumers is that this will deter future growth of the network so vital to future economic growth.

. . . . . . .

. . should be required to reckon with. ' . .

. .

. .

. I

. . . I

. I

. .

i

I

. . .

. - _ , . ,

' . . . . . . . . .

I If the FCC Ijroceeds.with its latest regulatory'scheme, it may. soon find itself in the embarrassing situation.of again being turned down by a . court whose patience has already been tried. All of this legal wrangling is .bad for the markets and bad for the telecornmunications.and , ' .

Elated high-tech industries. I? practical terms, that has rq$g)j m d will continue to mean delays in delivering new services such as .

broadband to customers, and the Slower creation,of new jobs and economic growth. I .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these precisely the goals , I . . , . , that,the . I FCC is supposed tu be advancing.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow'at the Catohstitufe. \- . , ,

LOAD-DATE: December 15,2004 : . I \ ' '

, ' .

CoDvrioht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a,'division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All fights reserved. . Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8, Conditions. Please review them..

-. i , . I

I

. .

. I

. . ' 8 a . .

. .

. . . . . . .

. .

. . , ' 1 .

. .

. ..

. .

t . '

.!,#' .

I, I I I I :

.. . I

I

8.7% .

I '

I . .

Document Links:

HEADLINE: .BY LINE: - BODY: .

LOAD-DATE:

- .

I ,

. .

. . .

I .. .. I

. .

' C!" I I

. I

. . '. .I' ' . ! . ' Copyright 2004 News %ild Communications, Inc. '

The Washin'gton Times I '

November 14,2004 . . Sunday. ..

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. BO3 . . , . .

LENGTH: 567 .words ' I '

.. . HEADLINE,: Litigious risks to.your health . . . '

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore,' SPECIAL.TO THE WASHINGTON TlMES , ' I ,

I I . . . .

BODY:

.. . . . This year's flu,vakcine shortage is turning into a public health crisis: Up to ten million more Americans are'expected to get the flu this year, '

Americans are borried and furious. A recent AP poll found more than half believe their own health or that of a family member will be imperiled due to the vaccine shortage.

according to the group Corporate Wellness. Lost work due to sick days is expected to cost the economy more than $20 billion. . . .

I

Even more maddening are the waiting lines to.get the qaccine. We might have expected this from the old Soviet .Union, but not from ,,our ' '

American health care system. ' . . !

The Wall Street Journal reports.other vital vaccines are also at risk. We could soon face a catastrophic shortage of vaccines to combat '

measles, chicken pox,. tetanus, polio and other life-threatening viruses.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States had 26 vaccine manufacturers. Now we are d o w to just four. There is now only one vaccine manufacturer for each virus mentionea above.

I . .

. . .

. . .

The explanation is politicians and trial lawyers. Drug companies can't make profits from producing vaccines any longer b e u s e of product liability lawsuits.

In 2002, the entire global vaccine manufacturing industry had roughly $6 billion in sales. But that same year, trial lawyers sought $30 billion in damages against the industry in just one lawsuit. The damages sought by the lawyers were fivefold the entire industry's net income. And now more than 350 similar lawsuits are pending.

So the trial bar has destroyed 8 critiwl medical industry. Congress has the power to fix this crisis.

Why hasn't it? The reason is the trial lawyers' massive political clout. Last year, President Bush and Congress tried to shield American manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits and cap damages, but the legislation was squashed by the trial lawyers.

The trial lawyers are the No. 1 special interest contributor to the Democratic Party and to many Republican candidates too, has been the trial lawyers. This year lawyers have donated some $1 00 million to federal candidates.

I

Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards have both tried to pin the blame for the vaccine shortage on George Bush's lapel. In the recent', campaign, Mr. Kerry charged: "How can we trust George Bush to protect us from bioterrorist attacks when he can't, even get us a flu vaccine?"

. .

But wait a minute. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards sided with the trial lawyers and opposed the very legislation thatcould have averted the influenza vaccine shortage. And guess who are two of the largest recipients of trial lawyer largess in the entire Congress? This year Mr. Kerry has received $21 -7 million from lawyers and Mr. Edwards got $1 1.5 million. These senators and more than 200 othersin Congress voted with

.

deeppocketed lawyers over the health of children and the elderly, who need the flu vaccine most. . .

Members of Congress will return to Washington a few weeks after' the election for a "lame duck" ,wssion to complete unfinished legislative business this'year. We'd say - and we would venture to guess most Americans would heariily agree - that the most important "unfinished

The first action should be to vote on a Vaccine Liability Protection Act to ensure that the shortage of a vital vaccine neve! recurs. ,

business" is to protect our public-health and our access to life saving vaccines. . .

. .

. .

' I '

. .

. .

I:. I 1 . . . . .

I . .

. . . .

. I - . .

, . -.-..-

? , . .

I

' I

. . . . .

= . . . '

'. .

. .

I

. .

. .. . . . .I

e

. .

:I .

. . . * .

Stephen Moore is :president of at 'the .Cat0 Institute.' . . _.

L0A.D-DATE: November 1 5,2004 ,*i.k :,J I'

. Copyright 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed .Elsevier Inc ... All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them.

. . ' . .

' I ' , I . , I. . I .

\; '

' _ I '

!. * . . .

\.. .

. . . .

I .

. . . . . . . .

.. : , I.. . I

. .

._ .

I I

I

. .

I'

...

I I .

I . .

I .

. .

. 'Document Links: ' . . . . . Startof Document

. ' SECTION: , . LENGTH::

e. ' I.

. .

i .

. . . .

'HEADKINE: . BYLINE: BODY:

, I .. . . . ! I

' I

1 .. .. LOAD-DATE:

I . .

*a,. I I . .. ,I' ' I

. .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A21 .

LENGTH: 1020 words '

HEADLINE: The leftk.nightmare

,Copyright 2004 News'hwld Communications, 'I&. The Washihgton Times

I

October 28,2004 Thursday, .. . .

. .

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore' and Jeffrey Bell, SPECIAL TO THE .WASHINGTON TIMES . .

BODY: , I

. .

... .. I .

. . ' I .

I . . . .

. . I;. '

1 . .

. . .

. I

I

.. .

. ' I

. .

I

: . . .

Since 1980'the Republicans 'have occupied the White House in all but eight years. In more than half of those years, the Senate has had a Republican majority; and since 1994, the Republicans have 'cantrolled the U.S. House of Representatives. But conservatives have been frustrated.often in these same years by a failure to bring conservative. legislation to final 'approval.

. .

. . i

Conservatives .have learned that there is a big difference between a Republican -majpr'ity.and a conservative'majorily. Conservatives never . had a. true'working.ideologica1 control of either house ,of Congress. For all of.his political gifts,' Speaker Newt.Gingrich .(1995-98) was not.able to deliver a sweeping and victorious conservative agenda. After the government shutdown debacle, Republicans retreated; The Republican : Senate has even been more disappointing. It has seemed that liberal Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter have gotten their , way more oflen than have those on the'right who represent the heart.and soul of the party.

But in recent years,.the U.S. House has pushed a bold reform agenda - especially on economic matters. Even tho& who have not been pleased with this turn of political events agree that a. crucial factor in this ideological shift to the right in the House has been House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his whip system, which has been operating with increasing efficiency since 1995. Both sides of the national debate agree that Mr. DeLay, who has eamea the nickname "the Hammer," has run the strongest whip operation in the House in decades. . .

You now know all you have to know about why Tom DeLay is under increasing fire for trumped-up ethics violations. Mr. De.Lay is despised by the lefl, not because his actions have been illegal, but because they've been completely effective at neutering the'lefi.

Consider the taxcut agenda. In the last four years, the House has passed a net tax cut every year. The House enacted a deathtax repeal by a wide margin, health savings accounts, IRA legislation and,even a law to sunset the Internal Revenue Servike tax code. In too many cases, the Senate has become a graveyard of sorts for positive House-enacted legislation. . ,

. .

I .

. '

. . .

Mr. DeLay further infuriated the left earlier this year when he won a redistricting victory in Texas that will give Republicans fouk tld six additional House seats next year. Mr. DeLay insisted that the grossly gerrymandered political lines in Texas be redrawn. In Texas, about 60 percent of the voters are Republicans, but the Democrats under the old lines had a majority of the House seats. Mr. DeLay won a thorough victory against the remains of the old Democratic machine in Texas, and the left has had their sword out for him ever since.

The Democrats have learned they can't crack Mr. DeLay's conservative whip machine, so they have instead charged him with frivolous ethics violations on issues like soliciting illegal campaign contributions. This bullying tactic is hardly new: It is the centerpiece of liberal strategy in the post-New Dealera. Play ball with us, or we will destroy you. This is the politics of personal destruction that the left seems to always complain about. It worked against Richard Nixon, it worked against Mr. Gingrich, and in the Iran-Contra investigation it came amazingly close lo bringing down the most effective adversary the left has ever had, Ronald Reagan.

The most recent set of charges against Mr. OeLay has been the work of liberal organizations, particularly the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). To fife their charges with the House Ethics Committee, CREW drafted a lame-duck Democratic congressman, Chris Bell of Texas, to be their front man. Following the redistricting battle in Texas, Mr. Bell, a white liberal freshman, was overwhelmed in the Democratic primary in a new urban district by a black legislator, and has made no secret of his animus toward Mr. Delay.

Mr. Bell himself is under investigation by the committee, and all his major charges were thrown-od: But instead of exonerating Mr. DeLay, the'

The ethics committee threw out an accusation by Mr:Bell that Mr. DeLay solicited campaign contributions in return for favorable action on the ,

committee administered several wrist s!aps. . .

_ .

- 1

. .

Bush energy.package. But Mr. DeLay was "admonished" for attending agolf outing with energy executives while the energy bill was pending. There is a lot of slimy underhanded activity that goes on in Washington, but a golf outing with a lobbyist seems .fairly tame to us.

. .

. .

. . -I . I

. . . . .

. .

. .

. . Mr. DeLay received another wrist Michigan primary if Mr; Smith ' .

. . ' , . I . . ' would voie'for the B.ush Medicare bill. Mr. S.mith denies the !'horse trade" ever happened. '

Let's'be clear:, The left wants to smear Mr. DeLay, cover M! ,y i th mud, and then ride him,out of town. Conservatives can't allow this to stand. Mr. DeLay's "sin" is to'be a conservative Reaganite who never flinches'from a fight. Of coursei.if Mr. DeLay were'toppled, the left would be emboldened to torpedo other conservative leaders until we had either a resurrection of.Democratic control of the Congress or.Republican .

.

. . '. I ' . ,..#.. . .

. leadership with no backbone or ideological design.

Tom DeLay has one other endearing quality that has made him a stunningly successfyl politibl'leader. Mr. DeLa the establishment press writes about him. He disregards The Washington Postand New York think that image is more important than, policy victory that's unforgivable. But Mr. DeLay milqu.etoast Democrats, not only does the conservative movement lose ground, but so does the'Republican

. .

I

'Conservative leaders, in and out of Congress, need to defend'Tom DeLay with all the resources at their command, If Mr. DeLay is destroyed. . '.

. by the l$'s' henchmen, it may be a longwhile before anyone else with his ideological commitment arid legislative effectiveness corn& forward to take ,his place. . ,

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for: Growth. Jeffrey Bell is a.principal of Capital City Partners.

-

. .

. .

. . , ' I .

.I.. . . . q- LOAD-DATE: October 28,2004 . . . . .

I

. I

' I

, ' ' . . i .

. I'

. . , Copyright 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division af'Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ' ,

Your use of this service is governed by Tenfis 8 Conditions . Please review them. '

. .

- .

. . . .

. . . . .. . ,

. .

. . . .

. .

L

I.

. .

1

I

Document Links: Start of Document SECTION: I

LENGTH:. ' HEADLINE: BYLINE: ' I

BODY: '-

LOAD-DA~E:

. . I

I . ! . .

I

: I ..

I . . . . . . . . .

. . I '

. . . .

. ' I

.. .. I

. .

bu-in.

'. ,,' ' , I

Copyright 2004 News'Sryprld Communications, inc. The' Washlngton Times

' ' '

8:.

October 1 i,' 2004 Monday. .. . .

. .

. . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. MI , . . . .

LENGTH: 833 words '

. . . HEADLINE: A tax cut that will in-source. jobs , . . .

. . . . I;. . .

! . . . , . . , .

.. . . * .

. .

1

. . '

. . . . . .

:: . . .

'. .

' I

. .

... . . ,

I ,

. .

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON. TIMES

BODY:

This week President ,B.ush is'expected to sign into law tax legislation'that could enohously affect U.S. competitiveness and job creation..

Many Democrats in Congress.- the very people who have pummeled.President Bush for not generating enough new jobs - voted against the measure. I

Now for .purposes,of full disclosure, I will confess some of the turkeys that found their way into, this bill are fatter than grandma's Ttknksgiving bird. There's a buyout for tobacco farmers, a subsidy t'o native American whalers, codnuation of the 'inane ethanol tax break, and even ' 1 dollars for tackle box companies. Only two'words come to mind in readirig through the 600 pages: gobble, gobble. '..

But this corporate tax bill has two extremely beneficial pro-econornic'growth benefits. First, it would lower the corpotate tax rate for domestic. producers from.35,percent to 32 .percent. Since the U.S. now has one ofthe world's'highest tax rates on our home-grown businesses, this tax rate cut will 'help keep businesses here and reduce incentives to Wee abroad.

Even better is the provision to allow companies with overseas subsidiaries to bring those pjofts home to the US. at a onetime tax rate.of

I I ' . . ? .

. . . . . . . .

. .

. .

_ . . . I .

I

. . r

.. . 51/2percent. , . .

This homeland investment provision, originally conceived by Sen. John, Ensignof Nevada and Rep. Phil English of Pennsylvania, would serve as a magnet for foreign'capital and would cost the Treasury virtually nothing in lost revenues. It might'even gain tax receipts for Uncle Sam.

. .

The tax plan permits U.S. firms to repatriate profits they earned overseas,back to the United States without having to pay the corporate . '

income tax rate of 35 percent on this money. Instead,,firms with large foreign profits - companies like Hewletl Packard, Pfizer, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems - could bring this investment capital into the U S . and pay a one-time border. entry tax of 51/2 percent. This means we ,

make money on something we want firms to do anyway: invest profits in America.

How mu& new investment could we expect to get from this tax change? Independent analyses by Price Waterhouse Coopers end Bank of America predict a windfall ranging from $135 billion to $300 billion of new capital within a year of passage. That $300 billion.is more money than collected by the entire corporate income tax structure. This money can be used to rebuild industry and factories here at home. Let's call

Currently, about $600 billion of U.S. corporate earnings are parked offshore to avoid the hefty tax penalty on bringing these funds back to America. Current U.S. tax law forces our companies to pay the Internal Revenue Service for bringing home income earned overseas. For example, a U.S. firm doing business in Germany pays an inco'me tax in Germany, then pays additional U.S. income tax if the money flows back to the U.S. Thereby, that firm has an incentive to re'invest the profits in Germany, not here.

Victims of this policy are US. workers and shareholders in American firms. Sharehold.ers lose because the tax penalty on corporate profits repatriated to the US. would largely disappear.

On average, it costs.about $50,000 to $l00,000'in business investment to create a new manufacturing job in the United States. This tax bill therefore could create as many as 500,000 new jobs next year for factory and technology workers.

History proves capital foreign investment is critical to job creation. Over the past 20 years, dating back to the Reagan tax cuts, the U.S. has imported about $1.5 trillion more capital to these shores than we have sent abroad. This in-rnigration of capital investment led to a boom in new factories, plant expansions, .technology'centers and industrial output.

.,

. . . .

. . 7 .

it corporate in-sourcing. . .

,

. . . .

. .

. . f

. . 1

. . I

I

. . , c

For all the talk of "outsourcing of jobs," for the fast 20 years the U.S. has been a massive - thanks largely to falling U.S. tax . rates, especially cqmpared to Germany, France and .Japan. That's a key reason the U.S. has created 35.million new jobs since the . ' ' . . '

mid-1980s and the rest of the industrialized world less than half as many. .

The Kerry Democratsmoan that this bill is a corporate tax giveaway. These very same Kerry Democrats complain in their next utterance that American firms who invest abroad for tax-saving motivations are "Benedict Arnolds." But thiS tax 'plan gives multinational firtnsan inkentive to bring investments back home. The problem is liberals face a conundrum: They love jobs, but abhor the idea businesses might make money.

.

(*i.C. 14 P '

I .I .. . . Even conservative legislators will gag when they see the corporate giveaways Why Republicans in Congress believe

4 every bill has to be a Christmas tree with goodies for every K Street lobbyist . .

', ' . capital into the U.S., which means better- paying jobs. Only a Benedict 'Arnold could be against that. But cutting taxes on business helps create jobs. And the homeland investment provision brings hundreds of dollars of investment

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth, : :

. . . . . I LOAD-DATE: November 9, 2004 , ' '

Copvriaht 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved, Your use of this service kgoverned by Terms & Conditions , Please review them. :

- I

1

I.

.... .. .

I ' : I .

r"J

P4 . . (h

.. . . . sl' pJ ' _ ' . . I . . P4r

I . "_

!,. '

...

I: 1

. .

I '. .

I

I

I

'Document Links: Start of Document

: SECTION: I

' . : LENGTH:. I

. BY LINE: , .HEADLINE:

-. BODY: .

LOAD-DATE:

I

I . 1 -

I

. . ' " m'. : I'

. . " . cc I

. . . . . . . .

' .; .-

.. . , . . <. ' .. . . . .

. .. . ..

. . - . . . . . .

. ' I

I . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

I . . Un," I I .

'. .I' .

. . ' ' ,Copyright 2004 News'hlQrld Communications, Inc. ' ' ' . . . . '

The'Washihgton Times

September 29,' 2004 'Wednesday. . .

. . . .

' SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A19 ' .

pc. ,LENGTH: 972 words '

F 4 ph HEADLINE: Lights out on regulators

? BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON .TIMES

Plir

.

. . , Pc. d' BODY: I

. .

. .

. _

... . , . I .

. . . . I . . .

I . ' . . . .

I . '

. .

r;

. ' I

I

. .

. I " !q . ' . .

I Pi

I a If there's any4esson that policy makers should have learned from the electdcity blackouts throughout California in 2002 and then on the East

.Fh dark: . '

Coast earlier this year, it is that the wrong sort of electric power deregulation can cause soaring prices and leave consumers literally in the .

_ .

I

I I I . 1 : : s

I I I I' I I

In California, homeowners and businesses had to ration their electricity use, dim the,lights, and turn off their air conditioners. A basic sekice we as Americans take for granted - cheap and uninterrupted access to electric power for light, heat, running computers, powering hair dryers and dishwashers, and accessing the internet - was suddenly scarce: .

Given that our electric power network is the U.S. economy's central nervous system, we better make sure Congress'and regulators get it right as they restructure regulation of electric utilities. Disruptions in electricity supply and,rising prices could bring our economic expansion to a' ' . screeching halt.. _ . . . .

Unfortunately, federal regulators seem incapable of deregulating in ways that will benefit consumers andlmaintain a dependable electric power supply. Last year, the Federal 'Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proposed a plan to restructure the national electricity market that would have placed private power-generating companies across the country under the authority of new mega-Regional Transmission

.. . . _. . . .

. .. Organizations. . .

.This plan would have essentially.federalized electricity markets. The plan provoked outrage from governors, state utility commissioners, consumer groups and free-market conservatives. FERC was forced to retreat.

FERC now is grabbing for power through a series of rulemaking proposals, court filings, and other.means of regulatory fmt. FERC wants to force local power utilities to join regional transmission organizations (RTOs), which would' effectively prevent them providing a, first right of

. service to the very customers who paid for the power plants and transmissions lines in the first place.

FERC maintains this intenredon will foster competition in electricity markets, which will in turn, lower utility bills. That's certainly a laudable goal. But.it's hard to argue the current system, warts and all, hasnY;kept prices'low. Adjusted for inflation, electricity prices are lower now than throughout most of history. Electricity prices haven't risen at nearly the rate of oil and other energy prices. So why does FERC insist on "fixing" a..system that seems to be working?

Deregulation is supposed to mean fewer rules and less red tape. When ponald'Reagan lifted price controls on oil and natural gas in the early 1980s, all that was needed was a stroke of his pen on a one-page executive order. FERC needs 603 pages just to explain SMD.In some . . ways, the FERC scheme more closely resembles the multi-layered bureaucracy in the failed Hillary Clinton health care plan of the mid-I 990s than a deregulation manifesto.

'

.

.

" I I

. . ' .

I

f ERC's plan is hugely expensive: In a recent report, the Public Power Council (PPC) found the costs of FERC's regional transmission .

organizations has quadrupled from $250 million to $1 billion from 1998 to 2004. The number of employees at the Midwest organization jumped more than 500 percent from 80 in 2000 to 465 in 2004. In Texas, the numbers exploded from 50 bureaucrats in 2000 to 530 in 2004, according to the PPC study. . .

FERC's meddling in state and local rate setting threatens to drive utility bills up, not down. In Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma regulatory proceedings, F E N has second-guessed state public utility commission decisions aimed at ensuring ratepayers in.those states have low prices and reliable supplies of electricity.

It appears FERC's primary goal is not to serve consumers, but rather to serve as a life rafl to the merchant generating industry at the very time Wall Street and credit-rating agencies are fully prepared to bury the industrybecaase of poor business decisionmaking. Standard &

'

. .

I

. . ....

I I

Poor's energy analyst Peter Rigby notes "independent power producers gambled on a business on rapid and debt-funded growth." Now these .indebted power-generating companies face a perfect storm of rising interest rates, soaring natural gas prices and '. declining electricity demand and want a de facto bailout from Uncle Sam. .

I

'I+ :,.) I" .Bailouts of bad business practices aren't consistent with a free market model of survival.of the4ttest. Airline deregulation forced'sorne . inefficient airlines like Pan Am and Eastern Airlines out of business, but others like JetBlue rose from the ashes. In the telecom deregulatory environment, overinvestment in the crazed late 1990s led to tenp of billions of dollars in bverinvestmenl, shareholder losses and.eventua1 I

' '

'' bankruptcies. Uncle Sam never rushed in to use taxpayefaollars to keep these companies a oat.

. . . : . ! .

f Everyone wants to ensure that captive local customers aren't price-gouged by lopi electric uti 'ties, which regulated monopolies. The goal is to-eventually allow the power markets to evolve so homeow k ers and on the national power grid from any number of competing utilities. The genuine deregulation madel in deregulated phone service now operates, where consumers can choosd.from many phone

. Under that model, long-distance' prices have plummeted.

FERC talks thetalkof deregulation, but it intervenes in the market place to transform losers into winners. If FERC wntinues with this model, it may not be long before its phony "deregulation" scam brings the California crisis to the rest of the nation. Congress should turn out the

,

'

. lights at FERC before these bungling regulators turn the lights out on the rest of us. 'i ' i

" ' : i . . . , ! , . I

. . ' i . ~ ( 3 Stephen Mo~re is president of (he Club .for Growth and a-senior economics fellow at the Cat0 Institute. '.

. . , I

. i I ,

P*h W LOAD-DATE:' November 9,2004. ' . a , i

I

I

Copvrisht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevi.er lnc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by

i i i : Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

. . . .

I

Document Links :. Start of Document

: SECTION: , I

I LENGTH:. HEA DL IN E : BYLINE: ' I

- BODY: ' ,

LOAD-DATE:'

I

. . -1:

I ' . . 1.

. .

. . . , . .. -

: I .. . . .

. , I

.. .. . ' I

I . .

CU" I I . '. 4' ' I

' Copyright 2004 News \Wol;ld Communicatiory,'lrtc: . , I

The Washington Times

August 31,2004 Tuesday . . . . . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A17

LENGTH: 1321 words '

P4

m p.c, HEADLINE: The right economic agenda . . .

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore,'SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

I . .

!V .

. .

I

. .

I

. .

. ..

. .

. .

. .

. .

. . .

. ..

. .

..... ,

t .

I .

. .

. . I. I . .

1 .

. . ' I

I

:: . '

. . .

. . The presidential campaign' has come do& to two rival ideological visions forthe United States. John Kerry wishes to create a middle-class

ph entitlement society, where the government offers free health care, child care and college tuition to tens of millions of Working-class p,~ 'Americans. He offers America, in .a sense, the mythical and alluring free lunch.

I

I I I I I I I I I I I

. . 1 How will Republicans combat this demagogic, socialistic vision of, government as the cdntral force in our lives?

The answer is to offer a countervision with bedrock American principles of freedom, opportunity,'and prosperity as a higher and nobler goal. : America is not Europe - nor should it be. . .

I

President Bush lately has spoken eloquently of his desire to create what he calls "an ownership society." He wants to-pursue policies that expand home ownersh.ip, stock ownership, and new business creation. In a sense, Mr. Bush wants to create in America a nation of capitalists. '

It is hoped that as Americans become-shareholders and owners of wealth, they will become less dependent on government. That is precisely why the left is agitated and desperate to win.

The White House has unveiled this attractive, pro-growth vision of 21st century America, but has refused so far to describe in all bbt broad-brush strokes the actual policies that would advance the Ownership society.

'

. . r

Mr. Bush needs to do so for two reasons:

(1) Laying out a conservative economic agenda is the best way for the president to solidify and energize his conservative base of voters. Karl Rove has spoken many times of the fact some 4 million to 6 million conservatives did not vote ih 2000, which caused a pen'lou~ly~close election. Conservatives might wonder if a Bush victory is a Conservative victory at all if there is no mandate for an economic agenda that promotes freedom and prosperity and smaller government. Mr. Bush is seeking an electoral mandate to do ... what exactly? Presidents' second t e p s are normally far less successful than their first, and the Reagan and Clinton presidencies are stark recent examples.

(2) Mr. Bush needs a mandate to succeed legislatively in a second term. W ~ o u t an agenda, there is no mandate. ,

So here are five ideas for the Bush campaign that would excite conservatives and advance the an ownership society:

Bury the Internal Revenue Code and advance a flat-rate consumption tax. There is no more self-defeating obstacle to prosperity than our antiquated and unnerving tax code. All around the globe, from Russia to Estonia to Hong Kong, flat taxes are taking hold. Mr. Bush is taking baby steps toward getting us to a flat tax - by cutting dividend and capital gains taxes, lowering income tax rates, and phasing out the death tax. But why not end our tax system's tyranny in one fell swoop? A Steve Forbes postcard style flat tax would be rocket fuel for our economy. Why not end the failed income-tax experiment entirely and have a national consumption tax, paid half by businesses and half by consumers? The consumption tax would do away with tax forms, would beneffl our manufacturers and domestic producers, would maintain worker financial privacy, would make April 15 just another day of the year and would end the modem day Spanish Inquisition in America: the Internal Revenue Senrice.

Offer young workers private investment accounts for Sociai Securii. Every worker in America should be perrnit4ed to put aside as much as .half of his payroll tax payments into an individual retirement account (IRA) privately owned by the worker himself. These private accounts, according to economist 'Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation, would earn workers about 2, to 3 times higher returns on their .

money than what Social Security promises - and Uncle Sam almost certainly won't even be able to keep those promises. ,

. .

. I

. .. . . l

e

. . . .

. t

. I

;_ . .

. .

. I . . . .

Voluntary private. accounts for ticket into the owneFhip ' .

. society. Perhaps 80 percent would essentially privatize the largest federal program.

*'Mu&le the trial lawyers. Baseless lawsuits are to Arner&?s'e&momy what termites are to moden homes. They deter economic growth, slow innovation and raise prices of almost every product we buy from health care to jungle gyms.!The Manhattan Institute in its.brilliant report "Trial Lawyers Inc." estimates the net annual cost to Americans of frivolous lawsuits now approaches $500 billion. Americans now pay the,,

!. equivalent of a 5 percent trial lawyer tax on every good.and.seWice they purchase today. Health care costs are inflated by about twice that hundreds of millions of amount thanks to medical malpractice suits that benefit a few patients who'win thelottery .an4 the trial .bar.

dollars on other people's.misfortunes and then funnel a share in the form of campaign'contrib tions to left

Tort 'reform would put caps on judgments,.the end of joint and several liabilitywhere a'firm that is.only 5 must:pay as much 100 percent of the damages, reasonable caps on legal fees in cases where the

candidates: .

. . I n . ,

. . . I y . '

'free" products where consumers can buy products at cut rate prices, by waiving the right to s'ue.

Restore budget discipline. We need a new,budget act'ih America. President Bush has been,an abject failure at controlling fedeial .

expenditures, partly because our budget process .rewards spending and discourages economy. A new budget act that includes line-item veto . power, a tax and expenditure limitation .measure, supermajority vote requirements to raise taxes, ahd sunset provisions on government .

. programs would help restore a modicum of fiscal restraint.in Washington. Congress needs to be put in'a fiscal stiaitjacket that will help lower deficit spending,. keep interest rates low, and free more resources for private sector spending.

N * Offer school vouchers to create, an education thai truly "leaves no child'behind." The evidence cont'lnues mounting that school vouchers, .

charter schools, opportunity scholarships and other measures that offer Farents and students an exit strategy from the monopoly public. ' '

p,l school system can raise academic achievement in profound ways. America simply ennot compete and win over the next 20 'pars against :

' the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians and the Europeans if we are condemning kids to a second-rate learning experience. The issued school choice is not just one of educational excellence but of promoting civil rights to black, Latino and poor white children sentenced to .-..

''I failing inner city schools.

V President Bush proposed vouchers in his 2000 run for the presidency, but' dropped the idea when Ted Kennedy howled in protest. This is ,not

D"I,

I , I

' . . - I : . ' I . . . . . . . I CI3

. . . . I .

. .

. . . .

a time to retreat, but to create millions of exit scholarships that will allow admittance to high-performing schools for those ,who wlsh to. leave ! the government warehouses for children. . . . . . I

The left's strategy to win the election of 2004 is to seduce voters with free government services and confiscatory taxes on the rich that will . : very soon reach deep down into the pockets of the middle class. They see America 8s an extension of the socialist nations of Europe. As I

I I' I I 1 I I I I. I

Democratic strategist Stan Greenberg has argued many times, Democrats can win by extending the ruinous welfare state programs of the 1960s to the vast middle class.

Mr. 8ush can counterattack against the dependency culture with his quest for an ownership society with a program including federal budget control, opportunities for better schools, better retirement options, better health care and a less oppressive tax system. He must lay this plan . _ out during his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination.

The nation, but espedially conservatives, will be listening, Mr. President.

Stephen Moore is president of the' Club for Growth and an economist at the Cat0 Institute. ' 1 '

LOAD-DkTE: November 9,2004. ... L

. .

- .

' .._ Comrbht 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier lnc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions. Please review them.

I'

. . . . . . I '

. .

I

. .

. .'

. .

I

I I . :

I ' . . .

' . . .

I

. . . . . .

': -7

Document' Lin ks: . Start of Document

. . ' . .

' . I SECTION:. I

.LENGTH <.. .

.. .HEADLINE: ! I , .. .

BYLINE: ' . - . - BODY: . 1

. . LOA D-OAT E: .. .

I

P!.i I . I

' , I

'. ,,' '

Copyright 2004 News'W,&d Communications, Inc.

August 10,2004 Tuesday

. . r'l' , . . _ .

, . I The Wastiington limes

. . . . .

. . .

SECTION.: 'COMMENTARY; Pg. A15 . -!4 f'?1 LENGTH:943words , :

Pb pd HEADLINE: Move over, Moveon

. . I .. . . .

I% i e"Q BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

.. . '' BODY: .

tqr .

I

. .

I '

I

I . .

. .

, . . . . -

. . . . .

. . .

. . . .

. .

. .. . .

. .

... . . . .

1 .

I;. '

. I

. .

1 . '

. . . I . .

. . .

s , . _ . . . .

. .:

I

. .

. - . . . . .

. .

. . I

. .

I

' Pk, Left-wing "hate Bush" groups just recently proudly announced they have raised some $75 million to run attack ads against President Bush in . . '

. . . . .

r,d. battleground states. 1 I "

A good chunk of these funds are from Democratic gazillionaires like George Soros. The hypocrisy of the left 'on campaign financing is tk ly stunning. For years, those on the left were cheerleadeys for legislation'like McCain-Feingold that would take "big money" out of politics. The

, '

were sick of multimillionaire donors "buying, elections." . . . .

I. I I I. *

I I I I I I

Well, excuse me, but what in the world do they think George Soros is.doing? Mr. Soros,who has labeled George Bush "the most dangeroq's. man in the world," has already given $16 million to "hate Bush" groups and he has said he will consider giving much-more if that money can ' . be used to defeat Bush-Cheney in November. But the lefl-wing campaign finance zealots have not issued a peep of protest..'

' The American Prospect magazine for years railed against big donor politics but recently applauded the Soros money because will "level the playing field with Bush." But Mr. Bush:raises his money $2,000 at a time, not $2 million at a time.

If the left doesit want to play by the rules it set up with the new campaign law, that's fine. Let's repeal this .misbegot& law'by all means.

,

. .

, . . .

The BushXheney re-election team has not acted entirely admirably either of late. The Republican National Committee tried .to persuade the

This contradicted the longstanding principle of consenratives that the First Amendment protects political speech - even speech we find disagreeable. The Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to above all else grant the unabridged authority of Americans to criticize the Congress and the ruling class. After all, these men led a revolution against a ruling class. Would' James Madison or Patrick henry have tolerated a law that made it illegal to criticize King George Ill?

F-EC Chairman Brad Smith, the one unwavering voice of sanity on the commission, said it best: "If the Bush White House thinks it will win this election by silencing the opposition, they are sadly mistaken."

One unintended impact of the White House'cornplaint against the left's barrage of attacks against Mr. Bush is that it'interfered with.the ability of groups on the right to wage a counteroffensive. Republican donors were reluctant to give to groups to run ads attacking John Keny, when the Republicans were challenging the very legality of such political messages.

In effect, the FEC complaint created a unilateral fund-raising disarmament on the right. Left-wing groups were totally undeterred by the FEC complaints and, if anything, accelerated the pace of their 30-second N hand grenades. Groups on the right were under a de facto blackout. Hence, for the last two months, blistering and hateful TV ads against Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney by Moveon.org and other drooling-at-the-mouth .liberal attack dogs went unanswered..

Well, there's an old Mafia saying: Don't get mad, gel even.

Moveon is already up on the airwaves in battleground'states like New Mexico, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. There were 12 states in 2000 Mr. Bush won or lost by 4 percentage points or 1ess:Green rivers of left-wing dollars pour into these crucial states. The latest attack ad againsl Mr. Bush shows discouraged children with a voiceover announcing states and cities can't afford to pay for good schools because Mr. Bush spent $87 billion on Iraq. Another left-wing attack ad against Mr. Bush claims that, when he said his tax cuts would create jobs, he didn't .bother to tell us all those jobs would be in China. Clever, but wrong of course, given that already 1 million new jobs have been created here in the US. this year.

Federal Election Commission'to block the airing of political attack ads by groups like Moveon.org. . . .

' '

. . .

. I

.

. . . . . . .

. . . -.. '

' I '. 4, . . , -

I

' : . The good news is that now conserirative 527 organizations, such as the one I run, the Club forGrowth, have launched a counteroffensive to ', the left's anti-Bush tirade. Our Club for growth ads, which defend Mr. 6ush's.successful policies on the fight against terrorism and his, ' .

pro-growth tax cuts, can be seen on Web site clubforgro$b.Qrg. Our first,ad stirred protests from liberals, such as Ala? Colmes of Fox,News, who believes it is inapproriate to use images of September '1 1,2001 , in a political ad. But why should the defining event.of our lifetimes be taboo.to discuss'in an election with so much at stake? Didn't Franklin Roosevelt talk about the war against the Nazis'when he,ran for re-election in 1944?

, . :

. ' . '

. . .

. 4 . I . . , . . . I

I

John Kerry is a target-rich environment. This is not a candidate from the Bill Clintorj, centrist Mr. Kerry &n and . , .

. ' ' '

should be attacked for his positions on taxes, big government and his voting re.cord as the m on. Americans' should be educated on his penchant for taking simultaneously. mutually for that bill . , -. .

right after I voted against it.") Jay Leno'recently lampooned Mr.. Kerry by. noting that, if he wins the

and on and . .

. .

. . . . 8 ,. ' . . .

. .

president to give the State of the Union message and then the .rebuttal.

So'lhe battle is finally engaged. The task of keeping up ,$th the money spigot Geoige Soros,has opened will require a Herculean voter. ' ,

education campaign by groups on the right. Mr. Soros says we live'in a "dangerous world under Mr. Bush.

If,people think it is a dangerous world now,:wait until they get a load of what Mr. Kerry's policies would do to thenation. They soon will find out.

' . .

'

. . . . _... . .

~.

Move over, moveon.org. You're no longer the only game in town.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.,

1

i :

. .

LOAD-DATE: November 9,2004 . ' . . . ,

. . '

Copwiuht@ 2005 LexisNexis, a division of'Reed Elsever. Inc. All cihts reserved. Your use.of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions.. Please review them. . . . '

. .

. . .

!, I

. ._

I

I '

1

. .

:.-. ' 1 *

Document Links: Start of Document SECTION: LENGTH:. ' .

I .

(4i.k :IJ P

. . . HEADLINE: .

BYLINE: BODY: LOAD-DATE:

,..I ,. . . I

. . ' \, .

\ . . .

Copyright 2004 News World Communications, lnc. The Washington Times

. . ' . ' JUne'20,2004;, Sunday, Final Edition .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. 604 . .

.,.I, . . LENGTH: 971 words

HEADLINE: Contract revisited , . . .

I

I

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES' '

BODY: . ..

. .

I

9 -

. .

\* . .

. .

. . I

' 1 I . .

This summer the famous Contract with America that swept Republicans into power in Congress in 1995 turns 10 years old. The Cohtract was a bold and sweeping agenda to change the way government works in Washington. ' '.

It included 10 major provisions including welfare reform, rules to force Congress to live under ihe same taws as the rest of us, term limits, t& cuts, and most importantly: budget reduction. In the memorable words of Newt Gingrich, the Republican' revolutionary who inspired and led ,the Contract with America Revolution, Republicans were going to make government smaller and smarter. We are going to prove that we can get rid of programs, not just start them. That was a highly appealing promise to voters as the federal bud,get under President Bill Clinton

It is chic these days to criticize the Contract with America and write it off as a failed revolution. That would'be a misreading of history. Much was a'ixynplished of great significance during those first 100 days in 1995. Republicans for the first time did require Congress to live by the rules they impose on the rest of us. Committee chairmanships were term-limited. The .first steps toward meaningful litigation reform passed. And'perhaps most impressive of all: The, budget was balanced, not in seven but in less than four years.

There were. other great triumphs of the new Republican majority back then. Perhaps the biggest of all was strong-arming Mr. Clinton to sign the most historic social legislation of the last 50 years: welfare reform. Since that legis1,ation passed, welfare'caseloads have been cut in half and many of those welfare moms. now are productively in the work force.

. . .

approached $2 trillion. . .

I

Even in,the fight to cut government down to size, there were some early impressive victories. In the first two years of the Gingrich revolution, the feddral budget actually was reduced afler inflation by 3112 percent. The only other two-year period where that happened was m Ronald Reagans first two years as president. There was clearly a new ethic of fiscal restraint, rather than fiscal expansionism. . 1

I was proud to work withthe young and energetic House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, who put together the original Contract with America'budget in 1995. That'was an astonishingly visionary document - something we havent seen the likes of ever since. Mr. Kasichs budget slated more than 300 programs for termination. Most impressive of all, the Contract with America budget called for eliminating three whole Cabinet departments: Education, Commerce and Energy.

Perhaps Republicans overpromised, but in'the end, politics triumphed over good fiscal common sense. Ten years later, most of the useless programs still flourish. Here are some disappointing examples:

The Americorps program has grown 181 percent and President Bush wants to expand it further.

The Education Department budget has almost tripled since 1995.

. . * The Goals 2000 budget has grown from $231 million to $700 million.

'* The wool and mohair subsidy was terminated [hooray] but then resurrected by Congress in 1997 and now spends more money than ever. ,

'

* Amtrak subsidies were supposed to be phased out entirely by the year 2000. But this year the railroad asked for a $2 billion bailout and Congress is likely to.grant it.

The budget of $1.5 trillion in 1995 will likely reach $2.5 trillion this year. The war against big government was fought - at times valiantly - but . .

. . . . eventually lost. . *a '

What are the lessons of the Contract with America? First, this was an initiative, despite its failures, that launched one of the most radical and successful political reforms in American history. In many ways, the revolution led by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey helped bring the Reagan. Revolution to its beneficial conclusion.

I

I

. .

. I

. .

I 1

. .

The economy roared back to life on almost day Republicans were elected into the vember i994, the Dow Jones Industrial average'was about 3,000. By the year ZOOQ;!he Dow stood at 10,000. This was a period of unparalleled wealth creation.and

' One other-lesson of the Contract with America is that revolutions in America are shortiived. Reformers come in and ctiangethe course of ':

government, but it isnt long before the forces of inertia overwhelm the agents of change. That is what happened to the Gingrich Rdpublicans; It is what happened to Ronald Reagan, who accomplished all his major economic victories in the first two years.of hisadministration; Some critics look back and say Republicans tried to do too much, too quickly. Thats 100 percent wrong The window of political opportunity shuts ' rapidly. Best io do as much as you can while you have the other team in &array.

. prosperity. Whatever the Republicans did, the financial markets bulls clamored approval. . I

I I :

The Gingrich Republicans were a heroic bunch. They did a great servici! in turning around our economy and our government after two years. of the totally dimwitted tax-and-spend policies of Clintonomics. ffte Coptract with America contained policy changes of great consequence.

Its tragic that today many of those same Republicans who led the Conrfact with America siege on Washington have'settledfnto power, have become overly comfortable with their perches of authority, and have in ... some ways become mirror images of what they replaced. The Republicans now spend more than even the Democrats did when they ran Capitol Hill. Republicans seem to have forgotten who they are, .

and why voters put them there.

Perhaps it is time for conservatives to start plotting the next revolution.

. . .

Q' Stephen Moore is a senior fellow in economics at the Cato Institute and president of the Club for Growth and was a staff member for former. pj Rep. Dick Armey, Texas Republican. p.c

~ p4 LOAD-DATE: June 21,2004

I I I I.* I I I I

Copyriqht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Efsevier Inc. All rights resekd. Yqut use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

.. . .

I

I .

I

.,I:'!, _ .

I

. .

. .

I .

Document .Links:. . Start of Document

SECTION: , '

LENGTH:

BY LINE: BODY:

'HEADLINE: ' .

-. !' LOAD-DATE:

. .

. . . I SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A20' , . LENGTH:876words ,

HEADLINE:. Who needs the NYSE? PJ . '

I . I ,. . '. I

. \, .

: . , \ . '.

: Copyright 2004 News World Communications; Inc, The Washington Times

May 21 , 2004, Friday, Final Edition .

I . .

I

ph BYLINE: 'By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL.TO TH.E WASHINGTON TIMES! . .

It% .

. . I'

I . ' I . . .

~pb,.BODY:: . .

pq You've got to hand.it'to Richard Baker,'the Louisiana. Republican who chairs the Hguse'Financial Services Committee. Mr. Baker is earning a er reputation as the foremost muckraker in Congress as he baffles powerful and politically influential special interests in Washington; He takes

ca La$t year, Mr; Baker caused quite a hullabaloo in Washington ,by questioning the wisdom of the multibillion-dollar subsidies Uncle Sam '

~4 lavishes o.n housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These lucrative Government Sponsored Enterprises have spent millions' ~4 upon millions of taxpayer.dollars to protect their fortresses from just this kind of political assault. It's a good bet not many young rising stars in

. . .

on corporate titans that even Ralph Nader 'would likely shy away from.

Congress would have the spinal fortitude to take on these imbedded special interests; He does because the beneffis Uncle Sam cqnfers on . Fannie and Freddie are a national outrage. . .

i I I I. I 1 I I I I

. . This week 'Mr. Baker took on sacred cow: the New York Stock Exchange. On'Tuesday, Mr.' Baker held a hearing on whether the New York. Stock Exchange is really necessary anymore. That's a good question to ask in this new information age economy, which is slaying dinosaur industries the way cicadas shed their exoskeletons.

Mr.' Baker pointed out the New York Stock Exchange derives its power, not from the marketplace, but from government charter. This government sponsored enterprise'is a minute tax on stock transactions for services that may no longer be necessary. After all, the Nasdaq functions quite well without the services and fees of the New York Stock Exchange.

Most Americans - and especially members of the shareholder class - probably have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the NYSE. After all, isn't this instiwion the very symbol of America's hyperefficient financial markets that trades almost one-quarter of the world's wealth? When we think of the NYSE, we are reminded of photos of world leaders, titans of industry and Hollywood.celebrities standing perched above the .

exchange floor ringing the bellto begin a day of trading. This is unbridled capitalism at its rawest and most virtuous form..lsn't it?

There is mounting evidence the NYSE has become a stodgy and outmoded inhibitor of market efficiency that survives mostly because of government protectionism..What other institution could have paid its Chief Executive Officer Richard Grasso tens of millions of dollars in compensation for a job that is essentially ceremonial?

In this age of electronic markets, companies such as eBay, lnstinet and Yahoo can'execute'trades in nanoseconds. Unforhnately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission still *quires stock brokers to send their investors' orders through the NYSE, where service is slow and unreliable and where unneceaary ,middlemen take a slice of the action.

The NYSE is supposed to help the mom and pop 'investor and maintain the integrity of'our stock markets.. Nowadays,' it acts as an unnecessary toll on transactions.

The root of the problem appears to be the'so-called "trade-through" rule, which sends orders through the NYSE to ensure that investors get the best poce. But Nasdaq stocks are traded without the big, board and investors arenlt getting cheated.

Moreover, it appears because the big board is so slow and cumbersome compared to computer-based transactions, investors may not get the best price at all, especially when the market is volatile and prices are changing instantaneously.

I .

. .

' .

. ...

,

'

' I

Perhaps the most harmful monopoly power bestowed on the NYSE is its status as an.information cartel for the stack market. Brokerage drms are forced by regulation to send information that telegraphs their customers' willingness to buy or sell stock at a given price [information of. '

great value) to the exchange for aggregation. Those same firms are then required to buy the aggregated data stream back when providing a stock quote to their customers. This grants the NYSE with an informatlon cartel and impairs the liquidity of the stock market.

This informational monopoly, not surprisingly generates huge revenues for the exchange. The NYSE maintains this arrangement benefits investors. That may be so, but more likely it imposes '.'rents" on stock trading firms and ultimately their investors. This may explain how it is Richard Grasso and his lieutenants became the best paid :regulators" on Earth.

. . j I

1 . I

. . . .

. . . .

I . . . . -

I . . I '

' . ! . '

I 'freely admit I am stumped in trying to come up with- an estimate as, to how much this sweettieart deal between Congress and theNew.York I , Stock Exchange costs investors. It's hard to know how much efficiency is lost by current trading rules, established decades and decadep ago, I . before the information revolution. As we move ever swiftly into. an electronic age, where billion-dollar. decisions can now I . .be'made at the, . ,

.. . 5

' : stroke of 5- key pad, it does seem the NYSE is as.relevant as the rotary telephone.. . . ' . _.

. *

. .. 1

E

I I

. .

. .

I

Kudos to Mr., Bakerfor'trying to get to. the bottom of this mess. He is doing a 'big favor for'the 1.1 0 million American shareholders who, unlike the NYSE, don? have well-heeled lobbyists,looking out for their best interests. . . . I ' I

Stephen Moore is president'of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow . . atrthe Cat0 Institute. . '

1 I LOAD-DATE: May 21,2004 I . .

CoDvriqht (9 2005 LexisNexis, a divis%hof Reed Elsevier hc. All rights reserved.' Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

I . .

. . . . .

. . -. .

I

. .

. .

. .

I

. .

. ' . . . . . _ I

... . .

I .

. .

. . . I

. .

1

I .

- . . '

I

. .

I I

I . '

r

. . 1; . I I

I' . I,

I I

_...

I Document Links:' Start of Document SECTION: '

:LENGTH: . . ,

HEADLINE: . BY LINE:

.:. BODY: LOAD-DATE:

' I I)

Copyright 2004 News Wor!d Communications, Inc; The Washington Times

, - . .

. ! . . . I

' . I

. .

. .

I

. .

SECTION:.,COMMENTARY; pg. AM

May.5,'2004, Wednesday, Final Edition . . .

LENGTH: 1050 words

HEADLINE: Never a right time to tax Internet

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

. .

' ,

. :

Ih

. . , .

)h.. .' BODY :'

I .

, : I . . .

d. Finally, a victory for the taxpayer. At 'least a partial one. Last week the Senate appioved'compromise legislation crafted by Sen. John McCain, q Arizona Republican [yes, Mr. McCain was.on the side of the angels], to extend the ban on Internet taxes four years through 2008. President .q Bush and Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, who rates four stars for unwavering support for keeping cyberspace free of taxes, favored

a permanent ban, but a four-year extension keeps Internet users at arm's length from the Internal Revenue,Service and local tax collectors'.

bb I a for least the foreseeable future. '

IA The fight for a tax-free zone.on the Internet was tougher than it should have been, because a handful of Republican senators wanted to empower states and cities to tax access to the Internet at their discretion. Freshman Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and a former. I

I I I I I

I I I I

i

governor, led the crusade for states, localities and brigadesof special inte'rest groups who,receive the largess of local governments who all desperately wanted to tap this new cash cow of the Internet. Mr. Alexander was unfortunately joined by four other Republicans who wanted to allow local governments to impose a tollbooth on lhe Internet: Mike Enzi of Wyoming,'George Voinovich of Ohio, Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas and Thad Cochran of Mississippi.

Lamar Alexander's Internet access tax proposal would have done real damage to the U.S. economy at the very time it is getting its feet back under itself from the tech implosion in 2000-01. In this nascent recovery, growth is again being propelled by technology and knowledge-based industries. Free market advocates argued the Internet should be treated as a tax- and regulation-free form of commerce rather than an ATM machine for government officials to fund favored programs.

Back in 1998, Congress wisely declared the Internet a Tax Free Zone by establishing a moratorium on such Internet access charges. An "access'tharge" is just the government's polite way of adopting a new tax. The idea was to prevent the government from causing infant crib death of this new consumer technology. After all, as Justice John Marshall once observed, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." By all accounts, the Internet tax moratorium has been a resounding success. In 1985, about 1 in 6 American families and businesses had access to the Web, now 3 in 4 do.

E-commerce is the new frontier of business enterprise. International Data Corp. recently estimated the Internet economy in 2003 reached $2.8 trillion. In the U.S. alone e-commerce accounted for $500 billion in business activity and employed 2.3 million Americans. The Internet sector of the economy is growing 12 percent per year compounded.

E-commerce, in short, is to the early 21st century what the steam engine was to early 20th century economic development. Meanwhile, the telecommunications sector of the economy now stands ready to invest billions to upgrade the nation'scommunications networks and make high-speed [or broadband] Internet access available to all American homes and small businesses, as it is for large corporations today. The tax ban extension will facilitate that infrastructure investment.

Opponents of the Internet'tax ban always' had it wrong. They argued this policy unfairly deprives state and local governments who need the money to fund vital public services. Mr. Alexander has labeled the federal ban on the Internet access taxes an "unfunded mandate on states."

But an unfunded mandate is a federal requirement that states and localities spend money. This policy doesn't even deny states and cities a traditional revenue source.

Most importantly, the growth of the Internet and the information economy has' been an enormous net positive fiscal development for the states. In the 199Os, as the Internet economy soared, state and local revenues grew 3 times the pace of-inflation. By the end of the.l99Os, states and local government coffers were overflowing; it wasn't until the tech bubble burst that government revenues sank. . .

Republicans and many pro-gro&h Democrats have done a service to taxpayers by extending the no-tax zone on the Internet, and the GOP really dodged a.political bullet here. It would.have made little sense for Republicans to run for re-election as the party that initiated the . 'nation's first-ever tax on the 74 percent of American households who use the Internet. That's particularly true because these taxes already contemplated by some states and city hall wuld have cost families up to $1 50 a year.

I

' . . . I

. . . . . .

I '

. . . I

. .

I I .. . ,

.But the victoty'for' the Internet and only further postpones the purchases'should ever .be taxed. Here is why the se'lf:evident answer to that .question is,no. The.expansion of'the &commerce world offers a

. one-time opporfunity to erect a massive, global free'trade tone, in which government regulations, fees and levies are banned. ' . . I

' What .could be more liberating? Government power will shrink;as.the:iriformation superhighway is further demociatized over ihe qext 2.0 .

years to reach every business and household in the world. This is precisely why so many advocates of big.govemrnent want to4ap into the power of the information age e.conomy, before 'it renders them irrelevant.,

So kudos to John McCain, George Allen and the White House for clearing away.roadblocks to cyberspace future; It is'also worth applauding Democrats such as Ron Wyden of Oregon who fought valiantly to keep pbliticians' paws off the Internet. As Mr; Wyden said during the Senate debate: "Under [Mr. Alexander's] proposal, the consuQslF would .be taxed every time they send an e-mail, every time they. read their local newspaper or check a bank statement online." How sad ttiat many Republicans in the Senate need to, be lectured by Ron Wyden on the

The House earlier this year passed a permanent ban on Internet taxes. When the Senate takes up the issue of making the Bush tax cuts '

. 'permanent, it should add the Internet tax moratorium to the mix. An.Internettax won't,make any ,more sense five.or 10 years from now tha'q . ' it

. .

.. - . . . . . .

. .

.

. . . , . .

I , . . destructive impact of new taxes. 4', , '

1 .

. . . . i, does today. . .

. . _ .

' I . .

. . . . . . ' . . Stephen Moore is.president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

I 03 LOAD-DATE: May 5,2004 . ' . . .

I

. . Copvriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.' .

Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them. , . .

I

I

. . . .

I . .

' 3

. .

. .

I

I'

. -

: , I

a .

Document Links: m, ....

. .

I . . , ,. . I

I

. .

. .

. . .

I

. .

. . . .

. 8 I .

.';.. ' ' ... . ' , . . . ' , .;

. . L OAD- DATE: \, '

: . , \ . . .

. Copyright 2004 News World Communications, lnci '

The Washington Times

, , . ' Aprif:Pl', 2004, Wednesday, Final Edition '

. . . . . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A17 ,

,.* . LENGTH: 1226 words . .

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL' TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES:

. . HEADLINE: Plotting the Kerry tax curve. .

. .

. .

. . I

1 . '

. . . . . . .

. . . . ' BODY:' Last week John Kerry's new economic'adviser, Roger Altman, a former Bill Clinton Treasury bureaucrat, announced, "We will get to. the 'right of George Bush on fiscal issues." This statement was made only a few days after Sen. John Kerry proposed a tax plan to supposedly cut taxes for 95 percent'of families with incomes under $200,000 a year.

Is'John Kerry suddenly a Ronald Reagan tax-cutter who wants to ease the strangling government burden on the middledae? Has this tiger really changed his 20-year stripes?

Well, no actually. First of alf,. his claim "my tax plan onfy raises taxes on those with incomes over. $200,000'' has been proven false before. Remember? This was almost precisely Bill Clinton's campaign gambit that sounded so enticing and fooled so many voters in 1992. No sooner was Mr. Clinton sworn into office than he.tossed over the side his middle-class tax cut and instead raised taxes on millions of the nonrich who receive Social Security benefits or happen to drive a car, or use electricity for .that matter [remember the infamous Btu tax?]. When liberals say they only want to "tax the rich" what is sometimes lost in translation is that they define "rich'' as anyone who has,a job.

Conservative author Ann Coulter said it best. When liberals promise to "only tax the rich, they are about as convincing as the alcoholic who says that '1 will onfy drink on the weekends.' "

1

. .

But back to Mr. Kerry. Can he be trusted on taxes?

'Why listen to Mr. Kerry's tax promises, when you can'do a' Google search and find Mr. Kerry's actual tax record? He has voted to pise taxes on the mlddle-class dozens of times in the Senate. He voted against all of,Mr. Bush's tax cuts. That isn't a very taxpayer-friendly voting record.

In fact, let's be very specific. Mri'Ker.ry had a chance to cut taxes for people who make less than $2OO,QOO just last year. By choosing not to ' do so, Mr. 'Kerry voted to deny rneaningfuf tax relief for the voters he is pursuing. .

Using TreasurJ Depa.rtment data from the Internal Revenue'Service, I recently found the average middle-class'family would 'pay $1,933 more in federal income taxes this year if Mr. Kerry had carried the day and the Bush tax cut had been voted down. There would be no child crWi;

Now to someone like John Kerry who was born into, and then married into, a life of privilege, who owns at last count four mansions, and has a trust fund in the hundreds of millions of dollars, .$I ,933 a year is probably chump change. But to working people, $1,900 a year is real .

money. This is the equivalent of taking away the family summer vacation or paying an extra two months on the mortgage [unless you live in a mansion that looks like what the Kerry-Heinz family owns].

If you own stocks, Mr. Kerry really plans to sock it to you. Here he does not even bother to camouflage his plans. The Kerry tax scheme openly promises to raise the death-tax rate, the .capital-gains tax rate, and the dividend tax rate. He would raise the capital-gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent and the dividend tax frQm 15 percentto 35 percent.

1

. .

.. . . _ no reduction in the income tax rates; and no. elimination of the marriage penalty tax. . , . .

When President Bush cut these taxes on stock ownership, the stock market immediately soared 15 percent. Repealing this tax cut will I

, necessarily mean stock values will fall as the after-tax return falls. This alone could reduce household wealth of the half of American families who own stocks by $1.5 trillion. So the Kerry plan cuts Americans' incomes and wealth holdings.

All this puts Mr. Kerry to the left of even his former governor, and previous Democratic presidential wannabe, Michael Dukakis. Mr. Dukakis memorably told Americans: "I will'only raise your taxes as a last resort." Mr. Kerry, effectively says: "I will raise your taxes as a first resort, a middle resort, and a last resort."

Mr. Kerry says he wants to help raise the incomes of the working poor. Again, his actual voting record suggests otherwise. If John Kerry had his way in the Senate and the Bush tax cut had been voted downi today taxes would be due from roughly 2 million low-income working

1 . I

. . . . . !

1. ' . .

'. ' I .

. .

. 1'.

Americans [about twice the population of Idaho] who-don't pay income taxes.this yea'r. ! . .

. : . .

: When Mr. Kerry Voted against the Bush tax cuts in.2001 and 2003, he voted to deny 109 million Americans $1.5 trillion of tax relief over'the- ' . I next. 10 years, This is a rich country, but there aren't 109 'million rich people in-the 50 states. In fact, I estimate, based on Tax-Foundation .: ' . . dala that if- Mr. Kerry had his'way, the average family of four would pay'$15';440 over. the next decade.

Mr. Kerry's campaign would'squeal in protest over .these numbers. Mr. Kerry wants to only repeal the .tax cuts for.the rich, they vkuld,'say, not the middle class and the working poor. But every lime Mr. Kerry has had the opportunity to cut taxes. on these.fa,milies, he: has voted "no."

The Kerryampaign also says the central economic focus of a President K k y would be creating jobs. That is.afine and worthy aim. But how? His tax plan explicitly promises to raise income taxes on aUthose in the. highest income tax bracket. The highest tax rate would rise'

4' , . . The problem here is that 2.in 3 of these people - the evil rich - are ownlts of small- and medium-sized 'businesses. And businesses are what

Americans want a simpler, less maddening IRS tax code. But the.Kerry plan would make it more complicated;.' . .:'.

By reinstating the marriage penalty and restoring the death tax permanently, the Kerry tax proposal would.add. greatly, to the t u wde's , csl complexity. By raising income tax rates roughly 5 percentage points,on everyone and calling for more than doubling the 'dividend tax, he, .

b. In many ways then, the Kerry Tax is "the anti-flat tax." It gives us. higher tax rates,.more IRS complexity, and requires several million more. Pd families to file IRS 1040 returns every year. t... rq. Mr. Kerry can certainly count on the votes of IRS agents, tax lawyers; accountants and psychiatrists.'

. , '.' p

. . . . ! I

.

. .. . .

I . . .. . .

I . . . . . . . . I

. . . . . . .

. . from 35 percent to 40,percent. . ..I' ' ,

create jobs. So how will raising taxes on job creators, create jobs? Thigis like eating a hot fudge.Sundae to lose,weight: , . . .

-. , . . . . .

. .

, , . sends us back toward punitive double.and triple taxation of saving and investment'income. . .

. . . VI ,

, . . . . . 1 .

..... , I .

1. . , . . . . . . ' . ' .. . . '' But Mr. Kerry can't win the White House with these voters. He needs to.make financially strapped middle-income.Amencans believe he b r e s '' more about their economic! predicament and anxieties than Georgehsh does: . .

PIC To pull that off Mr. Kerry, must run from his record, rather than on it. He and the Democrats would need to engage in a great act of economic '.

. :: . :

0 '

fq' deception and dpceit. . .

I I

1 I I I I' I I I I I

. . I .

When people lie blatantly, they want you to suspend disbelief. They seem ask: "Who are you going to believe, .me or your own two dyes? Mr, Kerry,asks taxpayers a similar question: "Who are you going'to believe, me or rny'actualvoting record?".

._

, . .

When Mr. Kerry says he wants to be a fiscal conservative and cut taxes of working people, voters musf recall Ronald Rkagan's wise 'wrds: I ,

"Trust but veflfy.: If Mr. Kerry fools us with seductive rhetoric, as Bill Clinton did 12 yearS'ago,,we should not say, "Shame on him." We : .

should say: "Shame on us."

Stephen Moore is economics correspondent for Human Events and president of the Club for Growth. - : . . . .

I

LOAD-DATE: April 21, 2004 . . . .

. -. . . CoDvriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ' : , . , Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them. , , '

. .

. , I

. .

. .

. I

.. .. . . 1

. . . .

. ' I - ! . . .

. .

. .

I

I I

Document Links: ' ' Start of Document

SECTION: . .LENGTH: . . HEADLINE: .

BY L I N E: !. BODY:.

LOAD-DATE:

SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. ~ i 3

LENGTH: 81 1 words

m .... - Copyright 2004 News World Communications, Inc;

The Washington Times

. , . ' April:lB, 2004, Tuesday, Final'Edition ' . . .

, .- I.. I . . 4 HEADLINE: Give voters a choice on new taxation '

prg lh, BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL'TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES:. .m, .

I

! ph BODY:' When it comes to raising taxes, what part of "no" dori't the'politicians understand? Fi

. . . .

. . , -

. . . . . I

, . 8 ' I . '

: . .. . , ' ! I . . . .

In, the Virginia General Assembly, the bipanisan scheme by Gov:Mark Warner and the state Senate Repubticans to raise taxes in the Old Dominion state could be passed into law in the weeks ahead.. When antitax Republicans argued any tax hike should be approved by a vote of

. . . .. Q the people, the governor pouted that this would "turn Virginia into California." . .

rq Mr. Warner, the pretax Republicans and the liberal media are all deadset against giving the voters the right to choose ,on taxes.

Mr.'Warner is no fool. He knows a ballot initiative on his tax-increasing revenue grab would b.e sbundly defeated. How do vk know this? Because tax initiatives have been trounced every time and everywhere voters have.had a say. This is why Republicans should stick to their guns: No tax increase without voter approval. . . .

Every.ballot initiative in the last two years that has called for taxpayers to make the "sa'crifice" of paying higher taxes, voters respond with not just a "no" but a "hell no." That string of victories for the antitax activists was lengthened earlier this month when Californians voted 60-40 against a measure to gut Proposition 13.

, In Alabama, Oregon, Virgida and Washington state voters have recently soundly rejected new taxes [see chart]. In Alabama even the .governor's attempt to draw Jesus into the debate failed to sway voters. '

It's partihlirly striking that the latest rejection of higher taxes. comes from, the folks on the.Lefl Coast in California.

,

. .

. '

.- . . . . ..

Now California has always been considered by Americans in middle America to be a little quacky. In many ways, it has pursued policies that would lead one to believe this is the most left-leaning of states. And that reputation has certainly been enhanced in the past few weeks with the same-sex marriage ceremonies that are all the rage in San Francisco. This is a state where the legislature recently approved a measure to give "equal Gghts" to transvestites.

There is also a movement in Sacramento to unilaterally sign the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, the one that would put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.

But on taxes, Californians have never wavered in their opposition. The latest rejection of a ballot initiative to make it easier for the legislature to raise taxes, proves that even after 25 Years of the famous Proposition 13 antitax measure, and even after the left's ceaseless attacks . .

against the devastation to.schools, public.safety and government services it imputes to the tax revolt,the voters aren't buying it.

Specifically, the California initiative would'have gutted the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, replacing it with a slimmer 55 percent majority. Since the Democrats . . control more than 60 percent of both houses, this w,uld have given liberals free rein to raise taxes through the roof. . .

If that rule had been in effect last year, it is likely nearly all the $65 billion in taxes 'and fees that were proposed by the state Democrats v&uld,

this would be about as advisable as allowing Janet Jackson to appear on "Sesame Street." A state wading in red ink can hardly afford to write blank checks. '

In some ways, it is astonishing that after 25 years, Prooposition 13 is still regarded as sacrosanct among California voters. I guess Californians recognize this.tax restraint measure is all that stands between the Gold State and Chapter .I 1 bankruptcy.

Mark Warner's comments that Virginia should not be _ . turned into California was ironic because the two states have a lot in common when it comes to the fiscal mess.

.

'

! . have been passed into law. Given that the state faces the biggest deficit in the history of the states, even most Democratic voters. realized

t

.

1

I'

The California budget rose nearly 40 percent inTray'Davis' reign of k c a l terror, and it will take Arn

i . _ . ,

. .

. .

j . I . ;. I .

I .'.I That is'to say,, for all the special interest pleading in Richmond to fund "starved.services'~,and to ensure that police,and teach.ers get,paid, .:. ' ' 1 I . . . ' Virginia has had more revenue and spending growth than 'California. And whereas Gov. Arnold Schwatzenegger has proposed a bpdget that . I. ' ' :i

budget requests a 15 perceot funding'rise. ' C

. . . . the hole.'It .rose 42 percent in Richmond,over the same ,period. . . ' '' . .

grows just 2 percent a year until the budget is balanced, Mark Warner wants 4he budget in Virginia to grow 7 percent yearly. .His . . two-year ' I .

I .

. . .

. . .. ' ,

. . . .

. . . .. . . He is right about one thing: Only a massive tax increase will fund fhis rnetehric spending growth.

Virginians'keep saying "hell no'' to new taxes, and the poli&ar\S.jfl both parties seem to be politically tone beaf..Ttie . . govemdr and the ' '

' . , . . . . :

. . i . .

' 1 . . .

. . ' . . : ' ! .

. .

i . . . . . . .

. . . . .

Republicans in the Senate just don't seem to understand what the meaning of the word !'nol;'is. . I

, .

. . . ' 4', , ' '

I 8:.

1 i - . .

Stephen Moore is the president of the Club for Growth. 1:

, - . . . . '

. . . .

. . . .

LOAD-DAFE: April 73,2004 '

'. . CORYfiOht@ 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., All rights reserved: Your use of this service is govern,& by Terms 8 Conditions .' Please review them. .

: , , . . .

I

. .

' I

I .

I .

. .

. .

I . .

. .

. .

I .

._. . . . .

I . .

. . .

. . .

r

. .

, ' I . . . . . .

I

I

_ .

. I

I

. .

I !

. _

_...

Document L.inks:

- BODY: LOAD-DATE: ,

I .

\ : . . : , , \ .

' Copyright 2004 News World Communications, Inc. . . The Washington Times

. , . ' February 3,2004; Tuesday, Final Edition . . . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A15 .

LENGTH: 11 24 words . . I . . .

I . .

HEADLINE: pil& government prize . I

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES' . I

\ . .

. . . . I

1 ' I .

. . . . .

, ' I .

BODY: President Bush has'released his 'fourth budget to Congress, requesting $2.34 trillion of spending for fiscal 2005. I have often.maintained one of the biggest problems with Washington is no one can tell the difference between $1. million and $1 billion.

When Congress starts counting our tax dollars in the trillions of dollars, it is like a tflp to Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch. One trillion dollars, is a million million dollars. That's a lot of money, no,matter how you stack it. .

The president will predictably boast this is a lean budget that spends money judiciously on top national priorities like homeland'security and not a penny more. He will try to assure conservatives this budget limits the growth of federal nondefense; nonsecurity spending [social . '

programs] to less than 2 percent. His Democratic rivals will complain this is a penny-pinching budget that underfunds education, health care, the environment, etc., etc.

They are both wrong. A federal budget that will spend more money in a single year than the entire GDP of France and 3 times what it cost to fight World War II can hardly be disparaged as inadequate or celebrated as tightfisted: Uncle Sam Inc. will spend more money in just this

Ironically enough, we are now celebrating the 1 0-year anniversary of Newt Gingrich's bold declaration that "we Republicans will make government smaller and smarter." It didn't exactly turn out that way, given that the budget is now nearly $1 trillion larger than when the Republican revolution was launched. .

The truth i s that in recent decades, neither political party has .been a par&arly good steward of taxpayer resources. Government ingests about 4 times to 5 times more of America's national output today than in 1900. The government's share of everything we pFduce and earn has about doubled since the end. of World War It.

Or here's another.way to think about it: If you took all the spending by government and just evenly divided it among all families of four in America, ea&, family would be ,more.than $50,000 richer. This is double the level of spending in 1960 and 14 times the amount government spent in 1900, even after adjusting for inflation.

So the question American taxpayers should ask is: Does my family really get anywhere near $50,000 worth of services every year from city hall, state governments and Uncle Sam lnc.3.

,

. .

year than it spent combined from 1787-1 900 - even after adjusting for inflation. . .

, '

The composition of government spending has changed too. Even with the recent increases in the military budget in the new age of terrorism, a smaller share of federal spending is devoted to national defense - ironically, the one area of the budget where Congress has a clear constitutional authority to spend money - than at just about any other time in US. history. Traditionally, about one-third to onequarter of all federal expenditures were for national security. Now that percentage is down to less than one-fifth.

Almost alllhe growth of government in this past 50 years has been a result of increased civilian social program spending.

In 1940, 4 million Americans worked for government and 1 1 million worked in manufacturing. Today, there are 7 million more Americans working for government [21.5 million] than in all manufacturing industries [14.5 million]. We.have shifted from an economy of people who make things, to an economy of people who tax, regulate, subsidize and outlaw things.

'. .

I

We certainly have more rulemakers and red-tape dispensers than ever before. In 1935, there were 4,000 pages of federal regulations in the' Federal Register. Now there are 68,000 pages..That's a.17-fold increase in 65 years.

' Since 1970, the number of federal regulators 'nearly doubled from 69,000 to 130,oOO. We work almost half our lives now complying with government rules, edicts, levies, paperwork requirements, taxes and fees.

4

The odds seem a lot higher at least in the short term government will continue to rapidly expand than that the federal spending orgy will

I

. .

I

i

I 1

I

. . . :

I . . . .

I

subside. [After all, the ink isn' I .

. : . .

. President Bush has allowed the budget to grow by 8 percent per year after inflation in his first three budgets: What's worse, many in I .' Washington want government to grow a lot more in a hurry. Most of the Democrats running for.president, and even someRepublicans in .i

Congress, yearn for the day when government entirely takes over th& health-care'industry - so.we can have a socialized system ploie like ,

I France and Canada. phis would add about 5 percent to 10 percent more.of the economy under direct government control.]

,

. '

'

. ' . . : . .. . . .

1 Many in Congress want government to fully take over the financing and cgntrol of education of preschool children [ages.3-5] and to provide. .. free universal college to all 11 8- to 22-year-olds. This too, could add anothFr 5 percent to 10 percent of the government's'total take. :

In this bloated budget, the president seeks funds to keep'marGgges intact, io prevent overeating, to encourage teenagers not to have sex, .

.,I' '

Should it bother us that both parties now have bought into the belief dbvernmeht now.has a iederal program, bureau; agency or grant

. .

I . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

and to help give Americans the willpower to slop smoking. r'l', , '

. ' '

, contract to deal with every conceivable need: an indoor rain forest in?owa an arts festivals in Alaska, and swimming pools in, New York :,and,

I I .

.. . . . . . what's next, relief from the acne on my teenager's right cheek? ' . .

. . . .

Should the request for a $20 million increase in the National Endowment;for the Arts budget, the people who funded a picture of a crucifix in. ' .

a toilet infuriate us? Well, yes, actually,,it should.

For one thing, it makes us poorer: Just a few months ago the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal issued an.economic freedom. '

index of the world in which the U.S. ranked only 10th freest. The study discovered a strong and,not surprising statistical relationship between economic freedom [of which one component is limited government] and economic growth and prosperity.

' 'I . .

. . . . . . . .

. . '..

. .

A greater threat to our out-of-control budget is that it erodes personal freedom. When government grows, as Thomas Jeff+rson once famously put it, "liberty yields.'' Dollar by trillio'ns of dollars, we are voluntarily giving up our liberties'for a govemment that promises us n. ~

. . .

return a blanket of protection from cradle to coffin.. .Republicans are steering us in the direction of the "workers' paradise" of a Europea socialist welfare state, and the reply from the Democrats is faster, faster.

Stephen Moore 'is president'of the'Club for Growth and a senior fellow in economics'at,the Fato"1nstitute. . . .

LOAD-DATE: February 3,2004

. . . . ,I . :

. . .

. . . . .

I .

Cowhaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. .'

Your use of this servi? is governed by Terms .8 Conditions . Please review them. I

. . . .

t

. . .

I:

.

i .

! Document Links: : ' Start of Document

SECTION: . . . .

LENGTH: . . lair* :I,) 1'

HEADLINE: .

6 Y LINE: . . I .

: - BODY: I . . , . , . .

LOAD-DATE: . .. \ . . . . I \ .

'' Copyright 2004 News World Communications, Inc. i . . The. Washington Times

. , . ' January 23, 2004, Friday, Final Edition . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A19

LENGTH: 844 words ..... . .

. !dl HEAD1INE:'Pondering the state of.Bush's union , I

Wl l% BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES ' P4 h, BODY: '

,,..r~ Here are the words'George W.'Bush should-have spoken to the nation last night: ..

. .

' a '

1 - . .

: " I .

q .. . .

a . "My fellow Americans: The state of the union is healthy. The economic recovery is picking up steam. We are 'winning the war against

If President Bush had kept it short and sweet, .the Arnerican'people would have stood on their living couches and thunderously applauded. ,

I 'y terrorism. Keep the faith. God bless. Good night." ' . ..

p j Brevity is,after all, the soul, of wit.

I

I 1 I I I I' I I

I 1.

Alas, the art of short political speeches went out sometime's.oon after the Gettysburg Address, which was only a few hundred words and took less than 5 minutes to deliver.

Instead, Mr.' Bush held us captive for just under an'hour. That was an improvement over his predecessor. Bill Clinton's State of the,Union

I always felt Mr. Clinton believed in his heart of hearts that if.he could just go on prattling forever,' he could conjure up some new multimillion-dollar piogram to solve every problem in America, including exterminating the fly swimming around in my soup.or fixing the drip .on the bathroom faucet. .

Bill Clinton felt our pain so deeply there was no price he was not willing to have taxpayers bear to make us feel better. Of course, you,needed a cash rhister to ring up the cost. of Mr. Clinton's new spending pronouncements.

Mr. Bush too, has this unattractive tendency to believe there is a government agency to fix every leaky pipe in the nation:Mt. Bush may not have announced a national campaign to eradicate athlete's foot, but it wouldn't have been much of a stretch if he had. After all, he wants to send a man to Mars - not Paul ONeill, regrettably - and that will cost $500 billion over 10 years. He wants to spend millions to promote holy matrimony. . . He.wants to spend $200 million to fight obesity - why can7 we, just tell fat people to stop overeating?

He says he wants,to sizably increase funding for community colleges and job training and spreading 'democracy around the woild; He wants to subsidize wheat and corn farmers. There will be more funds to fight AIDS in Africa and, to purchase garbage trucks inllraq.. ..

addresses were 1 1 /2 hour exercises in. self-aggrandizement.. , I .

.

'

I

He wants money for hydrogen-fueled cars, and a manufacturing czar.

Presumably the czar, much like Dorothy in. the "Wizard of Oz,"'can magically click the heels on her Ruby slippers and make $15 an hour factory jobs reappear..Can a Cabinet agency - the Department of Homeland Manufacturing. - be far behind?

There seems to be in recent years a correlation between the length of the 'State of the Union speech and the sue of the budget expansion in the upcoming year. Americans see,m to approve when president's roll out a wish list of new problem-solving federal agencies, as :if for one night at least, they buy into the fantasy that government really is Santa Claus.

The State of the Union has become our one chance as Americans to ask Washington what our country will do for us. So the convention' is now for the president to pander to us, and if the pollsters are right, that's the way we like it. We want the goody bag at the end of the party.

What George Bush did not talk about was ending the spending spree in Washington that has become one of his unfortunate legacies. He said "we must spend tax dollars wisely," but Congress has done anything but that in recent years, He pledges to hold spending increases to 4 percent this year. But so he has'every year and every year the budget 'has accelerated at twice that pace. The pledge not to waste our tax dollars rings hollow given that in a matter of days, he will sign into law a budget-buster that provides money for,Alaska skating rinks, Michigan swimming pools and Iowa indoor rain forests.

There were high points for freedom and free markets in the Bush speech to be sure. Mr. Bush wants to make tax cuts permanent'ias

1

!

I

I 1

. . . . . .

I . .

I. . .

. . . . . .

. 1

opposed to Democrats, who want wants to expand tax-free And most important, he wants to give Americans the' option of investing their payroll taxes in .a private account. These all will enwurage faster econorniclgrowth and.more choices for workers. ..

But'therewas still far too much false compassion. in the Bush message and not enough fiscal restraint. There is' no end to governvent compassion when the politicians are reaching into someone 'else's pocket. . '

The expansiqn .of government in recent years is arguably the, biggest .impediment to freedom and economic growth in America' today. The ' . .

State of Bush's Union has become in some ways a State of too much dependency.and a State of too much.entitlernent: With the federal .

The White House should be warned: if Mr.' Bush doesn't start ti'get cqrrtrol of the runaway budget soon, next year we may be listening to

I I

I ' I . .

. , .. . . . , . .

! I ..

. . budget now costing nearly $25,000 for every family in America, Mr. Bush Should not add to the burden. ~ ' . . . . .

I

I . _ I

"L', . ' 4;.

John Kerry,giving the' State of the Union address.'

. ,Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior f e l l y at the Cato Institute. :. , ' ' . , ' '

LOAD-DATE: January 24,2004 . .

Copyriqht 8 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights resewed. ' '

'Your use of this service is governed.by Terms & Conditions . Please review them. , ' , ' , . .

. .

I

. . I . . . .

I ,

I

. . . .

. .

. .

. _

... . , I

. . .

' I

I .

. .

I

. .

. .

I

, .

. .

' I I

. .

. . .

. .

I

. . .

1

. I

. .. I

1 . ,

I

' , i l

. .

..

. I

-1 ' ' I

Document Links.: . ! . Start of Document

SECTION: LENGTH:

BYLINE: BODY:

HEADLINE:' '

. - !' LOAD-DATE: .

. I .I ,I . 'I . I

\, '

- . I \ . . .

. Copyright 2004 News World Com,munications, 'lnc.'; The ,Washington Times

. . . . .

. . . '. . .

I

January 14, 2004, Wednesday, Final Edition. . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A14

I.',

. . ' LENGTH: 1222 words

b'HEADLINE: Clueless . . . with a vengeance W-iI . .

hBYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES ! ,

. I

Pt.BODY: .

, ' 0 1 .

. . I

. . . .

: I

4 If you watched George Bush's first Treasury-Secretary Paul ONeil's self-serving "60 Minutes" interview, in which he spevired venom at his c-former White House colleagues, you know aft that was missing was his clown outfii. .

By,far the best moment of the evening came when Leslie Stahl asked if he felt any tinges of gui! for the blindside kidney punches he was . cJ throwing at President Bush. Mr. ONeil .coyly played dumb and wondered why anyone would view his portrayal of the president as unflattering. l k He pretended he was doing the president a favor, because, "After all, all 1 am doing is telling the truth." P\I

- . . . .

. . .. . .

' , .

Yes, Mr. ONeil, I'm sure the president is tickled to death that you describe him as disengaged on domestic policy issues, plotting to overthrow Saddam Hussein from his first day in office, and uncomprehending of the ramifications'of the economic policies he was proposing. I'm sure he, is equally thrilled you turned over heretofore. never seen national security documents to a reporter writing a hatchet job book on

Even Lesiie Stahl couldn't help smirking at Mr. ONeil for being such a - well, a rat. As such,we learn much more about the real Paul O'Neil, than the real George Bush in these interviews.

. the Bush presidency. , .

I .

I

I

I

I

I

I I' I I I I

Let us be clear on one thing about Paul ONeil: He was one of the worst Treasury secretaries in memory. During the height of a currency crisis and meltdown in the stock market, Mr. O'Neil was playing the role of a rocl(.groupie ,as he followed Bono around Africa. Many Washingtonians, .not least of all, Mr. Bush himself, half hoped he would never come back. He had a penchant for wedging his foot in .his mouth, talking. down the dollar and the need for tax cuts, and then pathetically blaming every. faux pas on 'his penchant for "telling the truth."

He was incapable of dealing with foreign kaden. During his tenure, the economy performed miserably -. that certainly wasn't his fault but. he certainly also did nothing to recti@ the bad performance. ,

Mr. O'Neil never understood supply-side economics and was thus a.surprise candidate for the job of Treasury secretary to begin with. He came from the Richard Nixon wing of the party.

As chief executive officer of Alcoa, he was one the major corporete cheerleaders for George Bush Sr;'s "read my lips" tax increase that .

Now he seems hell-bent on bringing down this'Bush presidency, perhaps because,he is still infuriated over his firing4ast year. Dick Cheney got him the job - he and Mr. ONeil were buddies when Mr. Cheney was the head of Halliburton - but Mr. O'Neil doesn't pull his .punches when it comes to the vice president; describing him as a feckless pawn in the White Hquse. [Recommending Mr. O'Nefl'to Bush may be Dick Cheney's only error as vice president.] If Condoleezza Rice was like the Babe Ruth of selections for his top foreign policy adviser, Mr.O'Neil was the Mario Mendoza of the economics team.

The press is having a field day with Mr. O'Neil's claim the 2093 tax cuts - the dividend and capital-gains reductions - were unnecessary and fiscally reckless. One wonders what this man was smoking when he was trooping around the hinterlands in.Africa with U2. Since'the Bush tax cut took effect, the stock market has risen 25 percent, the economy has produced 500,000 new jobs, the economic growth rate has doubled, and business investment has hit a 10-year high.

,

, \ # '

1

' , '

.

capsized the elder Mr; Bush's presidency. , . .. .

,

Again, even Leslie Stahl had to challenge Mr. O'Neil on this bizarre attack on the tax cuts by asking him whether they help explain the 8.2 percent growth rbte in the third quarter.

Mr. O'Neil responds, W e .would have had 6 percent growth without them." Even if he were right, 2 percent extra growth from tax cuts is nothing to sneeze at.

Why was Mr. O'Neil against a taxeut in 2003? Because he claims he wanted to start the debate on '"fundamental tax reform.'' But, hello. Cutting the capital-gains tax, cutting the dividend tax, lowering tax rates, increasing tax deductions for business investment, is a big leap

.- .

t

i I

I I . I . . . .

. . . . . _ .

. I . .

. .

. . forward toward 'tax reform. .. -

I'

! . ' . I

. . . . . . . .

. I

. . . . . .

I . .. . . -

. . " . -. '

_ . George Bush is giving us tax reform one bite at a !ime:

* ' Mr.'ONeiljust never seemed to. be singing'frorn'the same' hymnal as the rest of the Bush team. This became.cl&ar to me when I had a . . . private breakfast with him a few weeks before he was 'fired - back in October,2002. [He said, affably, that he wanted to,meet the guy.who was

My agenda item for the meeting was to impress upon him the importance of a taxkut stimulus oriented toward helping . . . . investors and ; .

I was stunned by his opinions. He said a stimulus was not needed. Heialso said that with America about to go.toiar with lraq~[potentially], , now was not, in his opinion, the best time.to pick a partisan fight witkt 'e Democrats in Congrqss over tax cuts.:He thought a "taxcut for4he rich'" was politically unwise. He saw little value in a capital-gsins4axm!.

. . . _

. .

. . . . always criticizing him in the','press.] ' . .

, . , reversing. the $5 trillion in losses that the economy has already absorbed hder this president's tenure. ' . . . . t

. bo.1 I .

. . . . .. '

. . . .

I continued. to press the point that the stock market collapse, if not reversed would not only risk capsizing the economy, but .could also. mean 1 . . i ' catastrophic losses for Republicans and President Bush in 2004. He said he.was not much interested in the politics of theseissues, but ._ , . . rather in giving the president sound economic advice. I wondered [not aloud] why. he so seldom gave any.

One of the, most poignant moments of our meeting came when he asked me whether I really believed any tax changes could impact the '

03 economy or the stock market in the short term. I politely said policy'changes, of course, matter in directing the economy io :the right dirdction. and that incentives matter - that's why we're here. He replied: "You know I hear this talk all the time about the value of this tax cut aqd that tax cut; but I've been in the business world for years and have made major investment decisions, and the idea that .these tax changes impact

N these kinds of real world decisions is just bull ... . This just isn't how the real world works.'' I nearly fell out of my chair. How could President : '

.. . . .

. .

, , I ' '

" .

- 1

pb Bush have put this confused man in this job, I kept asking myself.

'q short and long term. It'was a good thing Mr. Bush fired Mr. O'Neil.when he did and replaced him with the very capable John

... . . . ' I . .

. .

v-4' Paul ONeil never,was at all sympathetic to the supply-side and Laffer Cuwe ideas that are so critical to enhancing economic

would have undermined the tax cut..This is a man who is hypersensitive to the deficit and to the kinds of income distributional tables that

There was one other poignant moment at the end of our meeting. I asked Mr. O'Neil about his future plans. "I will stay i n this job as long as, the president wbnts me," he declared rather haughtily. He was completely unaware that aswe spoke, Mr. Bush was rightly plotting to get rid of him. Mr. ONeil had no idea the hatchet would soon fall. .

That was Paul O'Neil as Treasury secretary: clueless tili the bitter end.'And with his kiss-and-tell escapade, we might also say Paul O'Neil '

. !i . . always lead t6'the conclusion tax cuts benefit the people who are already wealthy. . .

th

I

' I 1 I I 1. . I I I I I I

was classless till the bitter end.

Stephen Moore is pre&dent of the Club for Growth,

LOAD-DATE: . . January 14,2004 r

Coiyrinht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service. is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them.

'

. . . . .

I

I

e

I

. . I

BYLINE: .!_ BODY: .

LOAD-DATE: .

I . . , ,, , I

. .

. .

Docu'ment Links:.' ' Start of Document

SECTION: .

HEADLINE: ,

. .

I . . . . I .

:LENGTH: . . p i r p !,,I I'

'

Copyrighl2004 News Wor!d Communications, Inc.; , The Washington Times . . .

. . . , January 14,2004, Wednesday, Final Edition .

SECTION: ,OPED; Pg. A17

LENGTH: 896 words . . m . .

Governor, GOP legislators betray voters

.I...

. Wl HEA.DLlNE: Virginia's taxaholism; . . I

rJl BYLINE: 5 y Stephen Moore and. Peter Ferrara, SPEClAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES P c . '

2 BODY: . ' . .

.'" \ _: I I .

I ' ! I . . . . .

I

V The Virginia legislature opens it 2004 session this week under the cloud of Gov. Mark,'Wamer's proposal for the largest tax increase in the *. state's history. ' R ' h . ' . ' w p% The proposal'includes a 22 percent increase in the sales tax, from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. It includes a, 10 percent indease in'thetop p,, income tax rate in the state, from 5.75 percent tu 6.25 percent.

I

I

i I I I I

I I I I

i

In the future, it would mise income taxes on seniors age 62 to 64, and on some seniors 65 and over, by eliminating or reducing current income exemptions for them. It would also increase the'cigarette tax by I O , times and give local governments the authority to triple that.

The plan throws some bones to taxpayers, like finishing the phase out of the car tax over an excessively long four more years. But overall the plan would raise state taxes by a record $1 billion over the next budget cycle.

The governor says the tax increase is needed to cover continued budget shortfalls after recent severe budget cuts:Indeed, he has successfully sold this line to the weak Virginia media.

highest level in history, up $6 billion, or 28 percent, over the last five years.

.

. . '

'

. . . .

, But annual state spending has been increased by $2.5 billion since the governor entered.ofice, not cut. The state budget is . . . naw at the . , . ' '

Moreovd: the governor now proposes with this budget a whopping 13.2 percent increase in this budget cycle over the last 0". Without the supposedly essential $1 billiondax increase, state spending would still increase a way too high 11.3 percent.

1'

Adopting the largest tax increase in the history of Virginia so it can increase'the next budget by 13.2 percent, instead of 11.3 percent, would' be serious taxaholism. Obviously, tax revenues are ri.sing too rapidly and need to be cut, not increased.

The voters h&e already spoken, and overwhelmingly rejected, the main revenue raiser in the governor's package, the 22'perent sales tax ' increase. In November 2002, Northern Virginia voters rejected an increase half as large by a margin'of 55 percent to 45 percent, even though .foolish business special interests spent $2.5 million to hoodwink voters into supporting the idea, In Tidewater, voters rej,ded the same increase Mr. Warner noy proposes by asmashing 63 percent to 37 percent.

To come back now and ask the legislature to approve the same tax increase that voters in the two most populous,'and liberal,. areas of the ' state recently rejected so decisively is a shocking display of anti-democratic arrogance by the governor, as well as deep taxaholism. Is Virginia to be governed by the people, or by special interest, anti-democratic elitists?

. .

Mr. Warner clearly thinks the voters are too dumb for the tax issue to be Subject. to democracy. He deliberately waited until after the election to release,his record tax-increase'plan precisely to preclude voters from having a say in the matter. He even bragged to The Washington Post about this anti-voter strategy.

This is the same Mr. Warner who ran for governor in 2001 with a 'huge ad campaign saying he would never dream of raising taxes, and that his opponent, Mark Earley, yas a scumbag politician for even suggesting he would. He sees no dishonor in now proposing the largest ta>! increase in the history of Virginia. The state is now all the way back to taxation without representation.

'The sharply higher income tax and sales tax rates will prove to be powerful disincentives, discouraging increased saving, investment, job .

creation and economic growth in the state. The proposal will hit Northern Virginia, which has significantly higher incomes and sales per capita .than the rest of the statellhe hardest. The region already gets back only 46 cents out of every dollar that goes to Richmond, and this huge tax increase will only make that virorse.

But perhaps the region deserves that, with local leaders like .Bill Lecos, president of the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Lecos is out . .

. .

I

i a

1 . I

. . . .

. .

? . .

1 . !

I

, . . . . .

'vigorously cheerleading for this tax whacking of hiwegion and the very .people he is paid to represent.. ' . .

: To Mr; Lecos, higher taxes and.government spending equals higher quality of life, even when the higher taxes are in Northern Virginia and ,: ' ' '

. . . . . . ' . I the higher spending is in Ro.anoke. Mr. Lecos should be managing th,e Howard Dean. campaign in the state. . , ,

I .

. . 1 I-- %

With Republicans firmly in :control of the legislature, the.governor's proposal:should .already be dead. But a cabal of Senate' Republicans, led

Any Republican who votes for the record tax increases proposed'by eithei Mr. 'Warner or Mr. Chichester will. have a scarlet T emblazoned on his or her forehead for the next I O years. The taxpayer groups will have a concrete, critical vote to prove to constityents thaf their supposedly Republican representative is actually a taxaholic Howard Deanliberal. These Scarlet T, Republicans, can expect a primary challenge every

.. 4' gc,:

election untilthey are out of the legislature.

. . . . . . .

' by Finance Committee Chairman John Chichester, support a . . similar tax increase. package. . . .

. .

. . _ .

1, . . . .

Grassroots Republicans and taxpayers are entitled to fight for whatthey believe in and against what they don't;.And'what they believe in is. . . .

. . 1 '

I maximizing taxpayer freedom and overall economic prosperity, not Wedish. socialism.

. . . .

. - .

. .

. .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth, and Peter'Ferrara is'president of the Virginia Club for Growth. . . .

. . . LOAD-DATE: January 14,2004 . . . . . . .

, ' ' ' Copvrioht 6 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them. "

... . .

. . I .

..... . . . I . .

I

I

. .

. .

. .

, .

! I

. .

I

. .

I

. . I

I

_...

' .

: Document Links: Start of Document. SECTION: ' .

LENGTH.: . ' . . HEADLINE: .

I

. .

I

BYLINE: i BODY: ' -

LOAD-DATE:

I'

. .

- .

. ' ,

: , : ' I , \ ' Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc.

The Washington Times

. . November 13,2003; Thursday, Final Edition . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A I 9

LENGTH! I101 words v-4

,.a.

65 HEADLINE: Hidden snares in health care Fs cqBYLINE: By Stephen'Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES '

'

. . I

h ' . '

BODV: 4 We are in the 11th hour of an epic health-care debate on Capitol Hill that could'shaDe the health-care industry for years, even decades to

qr '

'home; . . . .

CJ 6yall expectations, this new prescription drug bill for seniors will be the 'largest expansion in thelfederal role ,in health care in many moons. ' . ph But if this billsarries with it a package of freemarket reforms to the health-care system, all is not lost. In fact, the long-runkffkien,q of the. M, health-care market may be radically improved.,

A handful of Republican consenrative crusaders in the Mouse, led by Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and'Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are working to guarantee that free-market reforms like Health Care Savings Accounts [HSAs] are included in any prescription drug bill.

They are facing tough, but not impossible odds. The White House prefers.a market-based system, but it.also desperately wants a bill the . president'can sign into law before the next election. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy-led Democrats have almost all pledged a blood oath,to oppose

any bill that even has the hint of free markets. They won't allow any initiatives that would collide with the left's grand vision of a socialized

. _

I

I

i I I I 1 I I I I

healthcare system - which is the liberal's loony notion of medical-care utopia. . .

Today, health care is'arguably the most dysfunctional industry in America. Why? Because in health care the magic of markets are not permitted to operate efficiently, in fact, hardly at all. Government has ruined our health-care system; more government will not fix it. , '

One of the repercussions of the government's dominating role in health care has been to cause hyper-inflation in costs. In the last,thme years, a&brding'to the Labor'Depattment, employer-covered health costs .have risen by 14 percent, 12.5:percent, and 13.9 percent [see chart]. This is in an era when overall inflation in the economy has not grown at all, and in fact most consumerdriven industles have been characterized by declining costs and prices.

Today, the'average annual cost for health insurance for a family is an astonishing $9,068 for a family of four. In just five years, health costs have' doubled fqr families. The cost increases are making medical services increasingly unaffordable for employers and for families. This is the reason the ranks of the uninsured is surging in America today. Health care is just unaffordable. to,a growing number of'families. Soaring ' health-care costs are also a majotreason why so many states are broke today Medicaid expenses] and why the federal government is'

The government-run health-care programs of Medicare and Medicaid operate on a monopoly basis with almost no forces of competition to drive down costs. Medicare and Medicaid exhibit all the efficiencies and consumerdriven innovation of the U.S. Postal Service.

Ironically, moving toward a free-market healthere system will do far more to reduce out-of-pocket costs for seniors than providing a subsidized.drug benefit. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug bill may not be the political savior that Republicans and the Bush White House seem to think it is.

That is true for two reasons. First, seniors will have to pay as much as $600 a year forthe benefit. It's not free. Second ,.the Heritage Foundation reports that as many as half of all seniors with existing prescription drug insurance may lose that insurance and be thrust into the. government program. As such, many seniors may end up with worse drug coverage than they already have. They aren't likely to be happy campers, if that's the case - and they may take their anger out on Republicans. This is very thin' political ice the GOP is treading on.

Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle want a plan that is designed to fail and antagonize seniors, who will then vote Republicans out of office. This is where Reps. Ryan of Wisconsin, and,.Toomey of Pennsylvania come in.

Mr. Toomey, Mr. Ryan and their conservative colleagues say they will not vote for a prescription drug bill that does not install free-rnarket reforms in the health care and Medicare programs. They have insisted that any Medicare bill contain three.must-pass provisions:

,

.. . running huge deficits [Medicare]. . . .

'

, ,

. I

[ I ] A requirement that Medicare compete with private insurers after the year 201 0 so taxpayer costs will be driven down through the benign

, ' . I . . . .

. : . .

I.

' " */:.; .forces of corn petit ion.

I

. .

. . ti. '

., -- . [2] Universal health-care savings accounts to give.healthsare consumers more options 'in choosing health plans and coverage that meet,

. . . .

. . I . ' . . . ' E . .

2: ' :. . , ... . . I .' their individual heeds and control costs. . .

I-. . . [3] A cost-control feature in the bill that guarantees the . . price tag will not exceed $400 billon over I O years.

By far, the most vital of these reforms is the [HSAs]. HSAs are like takfree IRAs.where.the money is stored'in the account to pay for health. ..

If the family does not incur expenses of $3,000 or more.during,#he year, it gets to keep the money not spent and roll it into a regular individual retirement account [IRA]. These HSAs already exist on a limited basipand are cutting health-care costs dramatically.

For example,.one study b,y the Reason Foundation recently found MShs combined with a catastrophic coverage,'plan could save the typical '

family about $2,000.a year on health costs compared to conventionabinsurance. In other wards, the MSA plan ,could cut health care costs by '20 percent or more while providing more comprehensive coverage. That would make private health coverage far more.affordable for families.

Consumer choice and competition are the pillars'of an cost-effective health care system,' and thus are preciseb the ideas that.& Ted'

If Republicans enact a Medicare.prescription drug bill, they should do so only with.a reform package that,'gradually gets the government out of'health care and restores market discipline to this'industry. That' begins with the universal MSA provision - the, perfect antidote to socialized medicine.

1 :. , : I .. .

. . . . . I . . . . . expenses. If the family incurs a medical cost, it pays out of the account. .

.. .

1%. , , . . .

and give families far more choices in their health-care providers than is currently allowed.

Kennedy heartburn. . . . . _ .

. .

. . . . .

, I

Conversely, if the president' and Republican leaders in' Congress ignore the Pat Toomey and Paul Ryan pass a bill that makes nice with the Kennedy Democrats, they, further will injure the health-care system

. . many retirees don't even.want. ,

. . . .

Inciting the wrath of seniors and taxpayers is no way to go into a critical election season., ' ' . .

Stephen Moor? is president of the Club for Growth.

LOAD-DATE November 13,2003 I .

CoDvriqht Q 2005 LexkNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reseryed. Your use of this setvice .is governed by Terms & Conditions .;Please review.them.

'

, .. . .

I

. . r.

. .

I

I

. .

-. ..

. .

Ddcument Links: '

' Start of Document

:LENGTH: . ..

HEADLINE: ,

BYLINE:

SECTION: .

!. BODY: LOAD-DATE: ,

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A21

. LENGTH: 900 words Wn . .

HEADLINE: .Where's the fiscal outrage?.

I). . ' 1 -

I . . , ,. . . I

\,

\, ' Copyright 2003 News World Communications,' lnc.;

The Washington Times

, ' November 7, 2003, Friday, Final. Edition . . .

.?..

PJ! p4 BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL 'TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES I .

. .

, . . .

. .

m'hm 'BODY ' rr4 We have just closedthe books on fiscal 2003, and all that can be said is: Good riddance. This was one of the worst years 'r conservatjves, in many moons: The federal. budget grew by more than $150 billion - more than twice as much as any year that Bill Clinton was

fiscal .

i c:f in the White House - and deficit spending eclipsed $300 billion, a IO-year high. im . . . . . ' p!, This Republican Congress is spending at a faster pace than any Congress since before the days of Woodstock and the Miracle Met$:

, , :

, . . . '' Milton Friedman, the revered Nobel Prize-winning economist, declares this unbridled spending "is the single greatest deterrent to faster . '

. . economic growth in the United States today." I Another Nobel Prize economist, James Buchanan, worries that by altowing government to gr& so rapidly ahead of the pace of the private

' . sector, .we are "killing the goose of free enterprise that lays the golden eggs." . . . .

And Republicans are joming Democrats in the slaying. I .

A new Institute for Policy Innovation report chronicles the budget orgy. "What we have in Washington today," fi glumly notes; "i,s a bipartisan fiscal cop-out. No one' in Congress or the executive branch has insisted that federal tax dollars be spent judiciously." Yet, examples of waste and fraud in the federal budget have reached gargantuan proportions. Here are some recent examples that incite only yams from . ' 'Washington pokymakers:

* The Geheral Accounting Office [GAO] recently found that the Pentagon'l'reported an estimated $22 billi.on in disbursements that. it has been unable to match,with corresponding obligations." In other words, the Pentagon somehow lost track of what happened to the money.

An audit of Medicare discovered the federal government'made $1 2.5 billion'in erroneous. payments in fiscal 2001.

The food stamp program routinely sends out food vouchers to ineligible families. It's difficult to estimate the amount of waste here the fast couple of years', because the federal government recently loosened the state reporting requirements substantially. In 2000, the last year that estimates were provided, improper food stamp payments cost more than $1 billion..

* The U.S. Department of Commerce spent tens of millions of dollars on Advanced Technology .Program grants to just 10 companies from 1990-96. These firms had combined profits over that period of $31 billion.

The GAO estimated that $6 out of every $10 spent on Superfund is used for purposes other than toxic waste cleanup. The money is spent on bureaucracy, like secretaries, laboratory work, and ofice expenses. Superfund. money is supposed to spent on deaning up waste, not creating more of it. '

The U.S,.OffiCe of Management and Budget recent& discovered most programs don't.do what they are created to do. According to the OMB performance assessments of 230 programs, 5 percent of the agencies were rated ineffective and 50.4 percent of the programs were rated "results not demonstrated." If programs cannot demonstrate results, why fund them?

. 1'

- .

., . .. .

The chart shows it took Congress 101 years to spend its first $500 billion dollars. But it took just 10 years to spend.the next $500 billion; and now just four years to spend the last $500 billion.

.Government agencies ought to have a.naturallife cycle, just as private firms do. Private companies are launched; [hopefully] go through a phase of rapid growth and-profitability;' and eventually enter a period of retrenchment and demise. The fact Congress never puts govemment ,agencies through this. last phase of life is a major reason public agencies are so bulky and unproductive. They become money-sucking vampires that just won't die. .. . .

For example, Amtrak was supposed to be made financially self-sufficient, no longer requiring taxpayer subsidies, by.2002. In 2000, it only

I

l

a

. .

. .

I '

. . I

I , ' .

. .

. _ . . , i'

. .

. I

. . _

. .

'.. I

reduced ,its.budget gap by $5 million, leaving it $28!l-'rnillion short of paying its own bills. Last. yeari itwas technically bankrupl. By.law, Amtrakk assets should have been liquidated more, than a year ago;but it keeps rolling along, burning tax.dollars along4he way.

' . Runaway entitlement programs created America's budget crisis, so naturally Congress wants to. create new ones:. The Medicare' prescription drug benefit President Bush requested in his 2004 budget cost $400 tj'illion over the. next 10 years - almost double ... , the piicelag .Bit3 Clinton recommended. Yet; Democrats : I .. are arguing that, the Bush plan.is too skimpy,

'

. . . I .

. .

. . They are pushing for a staggering $700, billion plan and threatening to v& against finai passage beduse it spFds too little. . .

:

. .. I

c

. .

I . . " : : . I ' . . .

.. . Republicans have almost all of the levers of power in Washington. .

They've proven they can cut taxes. But they have also proven incapable of cutting fat OM ofthe, budget and of-setting spending priorities. Instead we.get more - of .everything. Conservative Republican Rep."hli)ye Pence of lnd,iana he recently complained: "I came here to . . . Washington to get the government under control. But every vote we've'had has made government bigger:We rarely if ever vote to,make . government smaller.'' .

Republicans need to realize Milton Friedman is right that the GOP's profligacy is the.biggest danger to our economy. It is alsa the greatest danger to the.GOP's political survival.

rn.. I I .

I . . . . . .

,

. .

. .

. .

i, . . .

er Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cato.Institute:and president of the Club for Growth.

ph LOAD-DATE: November 7,2003 . . . . . . IR

. . . . . . _ . . .

. . . .

. I

CoDvrisht 8 2005 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights resewed. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them. ... . , , ' I

I .

I I

. . . .

. . . !i

. .

. .

. . . _

Pa

I ' I

I

. . . .

1

. . . . .

I

I

1:

, . . . . . .

. ._

" I I

. .

I

. . I

- , Document Links:.'

Start of Document SECTION: .

. . , -

14i.a!I.J I' . ..

:LENGTH:- . , . '

HEADLINE: , .

BYLINE: .!, BODY . I . , . . . I

I

\, . . .' , . LOAD-DATE: . '

. . . .

' Copyright 2003 News World Communications,'Inc.; The Washington Times

. , . ' October 9, 2003, Thursday, Final Edition

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 ' ,

LENGTH: 811 words

. . . . . . . .

I . ' . Iw .kF HEADLINE: Recall shock therapy .

Ph p d BYLINE: 'By Stephen Moore and Paul Jacob, SPECIAL TO THE WASHiNGTON TIMES

'

l i b -.,E BODY:'

,

. . .

. .

. .

. . , .

. . . .

. I

I . .

, . ' . . ' I I .

I . '. ! . .

. .

v-y ~~, The biggest winner ih the historic'recall election held'this week in California was not Arnold Schwarzenegger,.but rather the citizens,of

California. Millions of California voters have exercised their right to remove an incompetent and corrupt governor. Three cheers for

F+:, The scandal is that less than half the states give voters the right to recall their elected.officials. .We think this should be made a basicright of sr democracy. . I

b;u voters in all states and at the federal level. Recall'is the ultimale voter safeguard to keep politicians honest.and accountable.. ' ' '

I I I I I. I I I. I. I

This isn't the way the left sees it at all. The Los AngeleS Times argued that the recall is "baldly parhan, threatens political civility that ,all.ows democracy to work, has become a circus that mocks the electoral process, and is inherently undemocratic." But what in the world is undemocratic about a citizendriven movement [Z million Californians signed. petitions for the recall], that engaged and energized voters across. the state? '

Why should politicians be "entitled" to a full four years in office if they are not performing? If corporate CEOs run their business into the ground, they don't get to stay in their job for a term in office. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty of a board not to depose an incompetent CEO. ,

Weft, Gray Davis was the de facto CEO of California, the sixth-largest financial entity in4he world. The economy cratered. The bters had a fiduciary duty to oust Mr. Davis as'they did.

,

One grdp'called Republicans Against the Recall complained that the recall is a "weapon of mass political destruction. The recall'will set a terrible precedent. Soon labor, unions and environmentalists will be trying to recall Republicans." Good. Many Republicans should be recalled from office. In Nevada, voters are attempting to recall their Republican. governor, Kenny Guinn, for raising taxes after he had promised not to.'

Good move. Recalls are the ultimate shock therapy that empowers'voters to impose discipline and accountability on politicians. We need ' . more such rne9ariisrns, not fewer.

The recall procedure is a political reform that came out of the progressive era of American politics. It was designed to wrestle control of the political process away from entrenched special interests and politicians who had been bought, off by them. But now commentators .want the politicians to be immune from .voter disapproval. David Broder of The Washington Post recently moaned: The recall is the byproduct of almost everything that. has gone wrong in our political system. Partisan excess, rampant personal ambition, dereliction of leadership, media inattention, phony populism and, as usual, the influence of money all are part of this nearly unprecedented perversion of representative .

government."

How in the world is what occurred in California "phony populism?'' For years and years liberal political analysts such as Mr..Broder have been bemoaning voter apathy and disengagement from politics. Here millions of voters mobilized in record numbers in California to change the way their government is being operated, and the exercise is being denounced as a circus. No wonder voters are cynical.

. .

, ,

Today only 15 states allow citizens to recall their politicians for incompetence, criminal behavior or other misdeeds in office., This allows the . ,

voters to rebel peacefully against political.arrogance and misconduct. . .

This is a commonsense voter disciplining measure to keep the politicians accountable to the people who put them in office. The nation needs more such mechanisms to ensure accountability, not fewer.

We believe that every state. should have empower their citizens with three basic rights as voters: referendum, initiative and recall.

These measures each put power into the hands of voters at a time when politicians, bought off by trial lawyers, unions or business interests, '

. .

refuse to put the public'interest first. . .

I

. .

. I

' I

I

I

I I

. .

. . . . . .

. . . _

., I . . : ' ' ' . ' * I . ' ' ' . :.' . . : ' , '. ' 1 . ' . . . . ' I

. . 1' . .

We also favor a constitutional amendment to permit ioters in states and'congressional districts to recall their congressional representatives in Washington. That would make members of Congress stopand.think before they run $500 billion budget deficits, vote .themselves .

_ .

- . 1 . .

" . , . ' preposterous pay raises, kite checks from the congressionai bank, and engage in-other mischief.

. . Thomas Jgfferson had it exactly right when he once declared: "A little rebellion,now'and then is a good thing." That is what happen@ 'in California. With a bigger budget deficit, than all the other 49 states combined, :the political system in Sacramento'needed a good shabe-up. Too bad so few states allow this peaceful form of rebellion to take place through the, power of recall.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Paul Jacob is presidefit of Citizens in Charge, which promotes the voter referendum and

,

. '

. : . . .

. ., . .

. . ' 1

..

. . . . initiative process. . . . . .

I . . . .

.a",, .

. . : '. 4' '

4-, , '

, Copyriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division 2 Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.. Your use.of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them. . .

LOAD-DATE: October 9,2003 .

' : ' ' . I

I

. .

1

. .

-. . .' .

. . . . _

. .

... . , . . : I

I . . . .

I

. .

I '

I

I

I

I

. . I:

. . . . . . . .

I '

I Document Links: . Start of document.

SECTION: ' .

:LENGTH: . . ,

. HEADLINE: . BYLINE:

! BODY: - LOAD-DATE:

SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. BOI

LENGTH: 593 words I%

." : ,

i . .

: . , \ . .

Copyright 2003 News World Communications, lncr The Washington Times

. . August 31 , 2003, Suriday, Final. Edition

,

.,.. I

.qr HEADLINE:RecaIbrathg the gas gauge ' I

h. . I

p,y BYLINE: By Stephen Moore and Phil Kerpen, SPEClAL.TO THE'WASHINGTON TIMES h.. . mJ BODY: ' .

. I . .

. .

. 1'

' I .

_ .

' I . . .

. - . T '3 With arrival of the Labor Day weekend and 'gas prices reaching $1.79 a gallon in many markets and even topping'$2.00 a gallon for premium ? unleaded, newspapers have been full of headlines about ''record prices." . .

. %r

.;

I I I ! I I I I. I I

I 0 Bht the talk about record highs b.based on a common economic fallacy - a.failure to adjust for inflation over time. General inflation.raises the bb. overall level of prices throughout the economy. The real issue is whether gasoline prices are rising relative to the other olfsts of goods and 1 ' ~ services. And if we measure energy and gas prices correctly, we find that gasoline, although the price has risen by more than 20 percent in. i recent weeks, is still affordable in historical terms.

The Energy Information Administration reports gasoline pric,es in both nominal and real terms. The real prices are adjusted for the effects of inflation by applying the implicit gross domestic product [GDP] price deflators to compare prices in constant 1996 dollars. As the chart shows, the current "record high" price is quite moderate by historical standards. We had higher retail gasoline prices as recently as 1985, and significantly higher ,prices from 1979 to the mid 1980s.

The late Julian Simon, a Cat0 Institute adjunct scholar, was famous for teaching us that it is most important to look.at the very long-term' trends in, prices of natural resources, if one wants to make predictions about the future. H,ere is what his long-term data on energy and gas prices tells us. Gasoline prices paid at the pump have been on a steady rate of decline since the 1920s, withthe obvious exception of the 1970s, when we faced an embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and gasoline lines.

.

In 1920, ,the real price of gas [excluding taxes] was twice as high as today. If the price of gasoline relative to wages were comparable today to what theywere in 1920, we would be paying almost $10 a gallon for gas. [See "The State of Humanity," by Julian Simon, Blackwell Publishers, 1995, Chapter 28.)

The same is true, by the way, for the cost of electricity and oil. Oil is slightly cheaper today adjusted for wage growth than it was 50 years ago and 5 times cheaper than 100 years ago. Electricity in to our homes is about one-half as expensive as 50 years ago, and despite the recent black outs, the,service is more, not less reliable. .

Time magazine recently published a major story warning that the world is running out of energy. The authors of that story, Donald Barlett and James Steele, are completely rnisinfotmed.Given new technologies in the energy industry and the new oil deposits being found in Russia and other nations around the world, the likelihood is that prices of gasoline, oil and eleddatywill fall throughout the 2lst century, just as they did in the 20th. If Julian Simon were still alive, he would gladly bet Mr. Barlett and Mr. Steele or any other pessimists a tidy sum that prices will fall not rise over time. He has at least 100 years of history on his side. And he never lost a bet.

One last word on the rising cost of gasoline. American motorists should be mighty pleased that the United States does not adopt the economically dysfunctional high-energy tax policies that are commonplace in Europe. There, gasoline often reaches $4 a gallon with more than half the price collected in taxes. Perhaps $2 a gallon gasoline is a bargain after all.

1

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow with the Cat0 Institute. Phil Kerpen is a research assistant with the Club for Growth..

LOAD-DATE: September 1,2003

CODYricIht 8 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. . . Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8. Conditions , Please review them.

. _ . I '

. .

. .

l...

' I

Document L.i n ks : , ' . .

. . ' Start of Document

SECTION: .

:LENGTH: . . (4i.k !Id I'

HEADLINE: . . I . ~~~ ~

BYLINE: ! BODY: I . I .I . .

LOAD-DATE: \ I

' . , \ . ' Copyright 2003 News Wocd Communications, Inc.

The Washington Times

, . August 8, 2003, Friday, Final Edition . . . .

SECTION:, COMMENTARY; pg. AA 7

LENGTH: 979 words . .

HEADLINE: Get government out of GDP '

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore and Phil Kerpen, SPECIAL. TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

.I... . .

. . '

I

I

1 .

1 . , . !

BODY: The latest GDP report of 2.4 percent real growth in the second quarter of this year is good news for the American economy and reduces fears of a dreaded doubledip recession. Caroline Baum .of Bloomberg notes that this stronger-than-expected GDP growth confounded most . economists, who had been much less bullish on the U.S. economy.

There were nuggets of good news in the Commerce Department report: Private domestic investment is up,'and equipmeht and software purchases increased a solid 71/2 percent, the largest increase since 2000, signaling that perhaps the long-awaited supply-side recovery is . now under way. Combined with strong demand growfh of 3;3 percent, the economy seems on the verge of an accelerated recovery.

8ut the bad news is that GDP itself is still a grossly misleading way of measuring the state of the national economy, as economist Lawrence , Kudlow had pointed out many times on these pages.

The headlirie-grabbmg number of 2.4 percent growth, immediately applauded throughout.the.media as strong, is about double the, real rate that the private economy grew. While the private economy grew at about 1.3 percent, the federal government component ofGDP increased by a staggering 25 percent, the largest quarterly increase in more than three decades. The increase was due almost.entireiy to the high cost of the war in Iraq. But even domestic agencies saw growth in their budgets far surpassing private sector growth.

The impprtant word here is "cost." Wars are a cost, not an asset.

You fight wars because you have to - because there are bad people in the world. But to suggest the war was good for the economy would be as dimwhted as suggesting Saddam Hussein desenres a medal of honor for helping revive the U.S. emnomy.

Defending U.S: interests militarily is a legitimate and necessary function of government, but it eats' up resources and reduces growlh; rather than enhancing it. So to a large extent, the growth reported this past quarter is a statistical mirage. The way we currently measure GDP '

makes billions of dollars spent look on military expenditures look like productive economic activity.

1

. .

. .

We should stop counting government growth in GDP. John Maynard Keynes was wrong, after all, when he said government spending stimulates a strong economy.

We now know government growth does not enhance a free market economy; it crowds out productive private enterprise and production of wealth-enhancing goods and services. This convention of counting government spending as an asset rather than a liability creates the illusion that bigger government means more prosperity. Where on Earth has that ever been the case? Certainly not the former U.S.S.R., East Germany, Japan or Argentina.

The dramatic expansion of government we have seen in the United States over the past century no doubt had some positive benefits. The government builds roads and schools and spends money on our national defense and police and fire senrice. The problem is that many of the goods produced in the public sector add little value to the wealth of the citizenry. These are goods and services demanded by politicians, not by willing consumers in the free marketplace.

The real resources in the economy captured by government for additional public sector spending can only come from three sources: taxes, debt or inflation. The build-up of any one of these funding sources can have influenza effects on a capitalistic economy. In the 1970s, all three accelerated at once, and the U.S; industrial economy collapsed until rescued by Ronald Reagan's supply-side and limited-government ideas.

In 2001 and 2002, the government component of GDP was growing about 4.percent yearly, whereas private businesses increased their output .by less than 1 percent. Since most Americans are employed by private businesses, not government, and since more than half of. American workers are also stockholders and thus owners of the private-sector corporations in America, the growthmof government does not make America's workers feel more prosperous in any way.

I I

2ontinual growth in government, one of the key components of GDP,. probably doeS:more harm than good for our private-sector-driven high-technology economy. Government growth does not drive productivity. It does not rally the stock market. It does .not put more Americans

, ' to work [unless thely work for the government itself). And it does not raise'incomes of workers [in fact, because it necessitates highertaxes, it I .-

. . ': ' :. : reduces take-home pay]. . .

P-

E

Here is our proposal: The cmventional GDP numbers should be replaced with Private-Sector GDP. Private;Sectoi GDP would omit ,

government spending from the calculations. This would allow us to measure how much the rnarket-based economy is expanding over time. By excluding government spending, no longer would economists and policymakers automatically assume the Keynesian theory that increasing government spending increases economic output. . .

Let's measure GDP correctly. Activities that add to wealth shouldlbe included; expenditures that reduce wealth'excluded. S o b , .but when we calculate economic growth correctly, our performance is still undewhelming. We would 'make the case that the single most productive thing Congress could do to revive prosperity ana jobs would be to cut govErQment spending as much as possible. By all means, 'bring a chain saw.

Bul this advice is exactly the exactly the opposite of what the GDP calhlators would tell us to do. The New York,Times just published a Page ' One story arguing that the reduction in state and local government spending this year is having a contractionary effect on the US. economy.,

Here we have the perfect example of how statistics lie and liars figure.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Phil Kerpen is a research assistant at the Club for Growth. . . ,

.. . 1

. .

'

g9 Gr LOAD-DATE: August 8,2003 :

'

. . . Corrvriqht 8 2005 LexisNexis, a'division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions. Please.review them.

' ,

I

. I .

I

... . . . I

I

I

r

. . . .

I Document Links:' Start of Document SECTION: ' .

HEADLINE: . .

BYUNE: BODY: '

:LENGTH: ' ,

LOAD-DATE .

. . . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY: Pg. A20 ,

, ' ' 1 '

I . . , . , , I I

\, '

1 . I \ . Copyright 2003 News Worjd Communications, lncr

The Washington Times

. . . . . ' July 21 , 2003, Monday, Final Edition, . .

. P . l

LENGTH: 653 words ' . .

HEADLINE: Those tax cuts beginning to work

BYLINE: B i Stephen Moore, SPECIAL. TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES'.

. .

' ,

. i

BODY:'

I

. . . . . . : '

. I '

. .

' . 1

a .

. .

Finally, some overdue good news for workers: Your paychecks are getting higher, thanks to the recently passed Bush tax cut.

The & tax cut officially took effect July 1. This means that the typica1,middle income working family with two or more children will save more

Unfortunately, the Democrats are already trying to snatch this money away by cankeling the tax cut. At least four of the presidential wannabes in the Democratic field say they want the tax cut repealed even before workers get a penny of relief. So much for the pro-worker.

Here's more good news: The stock market has risen almost I O percent since the tax cut passed. This increase in stock values has increased Americans' wealth by almost $1 trillion already. The cuts in the capital gains tax and the dividends tax [to a 15 percent rate for each] has made stock ownership more valuable, and shareholders are reaping big monetary gains. So a tax'cut of $350 billion has already caused asset values to rise by nearly three times that amount. That's one heckof a return on investment. .

This mini-rally of the, stock market is exactly what advocates of President Bush's tax cut predicted. We argued that the reduction in the income tax rates and the dividend and capital gains taxes would stimulate the economy almost immediately by reversing the stock market . . decline and increasing the after-tax value of equities.

Mr. BUSTS opponents not only dismissed the case for an improved stock market, they projected that the'Bush tax cut would harm the economy'by jacking up long-term interest rates. Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota moaned that the Bush economic plan would "raise interest rates, crowd out private sector investment and slow long-term economic growth."

Mr. Conrad and other critics have been wrong on all counts. It is true that the overall economy'is still growing too slowfy. But from the time the tax cut was passed through July 12, the Wilshire 5000 index rose from 8,773 to 9800, a 9.2 percent gain. The NASDAQ is up even more, 14.2 percent. Qecause'52 percent of Americans own stock,. the wealth effect ,of this market rise has been broadly distributed to income groups . Now it is undeniably true that hundreds of factors impact the stock market other than taxes: The stock market could easily capsize again next week, and the Dow Jones could tumble again. But so far at least, the stock market as a whole seems to like the tax cut as much.as investor-class voters do.

Here is what is even more impressive. Interest rates have not risen. They have fallen in response'to,the tax cut. In fact, just a few weeks ago the mortgage interest rate, slid to below 5 percent for the first time since before Elvis Presley died. The average home mortgage rate has fallen by'some 20 basis points since the middle of May.

The tax cut probably did not &use the interest rates to fall, but these numbers are the equivalent of a Boston cream pie in the face of the tax-cut skeptics who predicted soaring interestrates that would burden homeowners and small businesses. It is worth noting here that in the 1980s the anti-Reagan skeptics also said that tax cuts would cause higher inflation and higher interest rates, and both fell by half during his I

presidency .

than $1,200 on federal income taxes this year. I . ..

. . . .

Democratic agenda. . .

. ..

. .

So the Bush tax cut is not just putting more money into workers' pockets, it's helping their lRAs and 401 k retirement plans rebuild wealth that has been lost since 2000. That's a supersized payoff from a tax cut that is only two months old.

'

Mr. Bush is developing one of Ronald Reagan's most endearing qualities: Both on military and domestic policy, he is time and again proving his staunchest and most self-righteous crifics on the left dead wrong.

No wonder'they don't like him or his policies.

I

,

. .

I

. I I I

. . _. I . .

I '

' . ! . ' . . , . . . . . . .

. . Siephen Moore is .president of the Club for Growth.- ' . . . I .

- , . . q . .

I ' LOAD-DATE: July121, 2003 ' '

r ' . . . . 1-- CoPvriaht 0 2005 LexisNeGs, a divisionof Reed Else\;ierlnc. All tights resewed.'

Your use of this service is governed by Terms &.Conditions . Please review them:' '_ . ,:"

. .. . I . .. I I

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . I . . .. -

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

. . . .

. . .

. . ' , . .

. . . .

. . -. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. .

. .

. .. . . I _. .

I

. . . .

, P4

! I . .

I .

I

I

. . . . . . .

t

I . - . . . . .

. .

. .

I .

.Document Links: Start of Document. SECTION:

HEADLINE: '

BYLINE:

LENGTH': ' ' .

'' BODY: LOAD-DATE:

. .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. AI^

p4 L€NGTH: 899 words

'I' HEADLINE: Pull the re-regulation plug Ptn

I . . , ., . I

. .

. . I .

\ . : Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc. *

The 'Washington Times . .

, ' July 1'6,2003, Wednesday, Final,Edition '. '

I

, I . .

1

I .

. . : I .

. . .... I

. . I

. I

Td BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES PIC, ,

'P=! BODY: . . q Deregulation has been one of !he great pubi'lc policy success stories over the past quarter. cbntury. Consumers have been the big winners

' SY through lower prices and more choices. The lifting of.federal airline ticket price regulations in the late 1970s ushered in the modem era of '

affordable discount airline travel. Tickets for flying between major cities can be bought4oday at about half.the cost of what airlines charged 20 I

1 ' Q years ago. . .. Fb . .

I

I i

I I I I I I I I I

t'Vl Similarly, Ronald Reagan's first official act as president was the deregulation of the'oil ind'ustry in 1981. With a stroke of a pen, the energy . crisis and the gasoline lines of the 1970s vanished. As a consequence of ending price controls forail, the inflation-adjusted price to fill up ' ' . your gas tank is far lower today than it was in the 1970s.. .

I

' But we have learned another lesson about deregulation in recent times, too. When Congress or state lawmakers botch the plan - when they engage in phony deregulation schemes'- things can go catastrophically wrong.

That's pkcisely what happened in Califomia during the infamous electricity blackouts and skyrocketing prices last year. During the worst. stage of the electric power shortage, California homeowners and businesses had to ration their electricity use, dim the lights and turn off their

' air conditioners. A basic service that we as Americans take completely for granted - the cheap and uninterrupted access to electric power for light, for heat, ,for running our computers, powering our hair dryers and dishwashers, and for accessing the Internet - was suddenly a scarce .commodity. Electric utility prices skyrocketed because the California legislature implemented a tragically flawed electric power restructuring plan.

To fix the mess, Californian taxpayers got stuck with a multibillion dollar bailout bill that has made the most alarming state fiscal debt crisis in ,history even worse. Oops. .

Next week, Congress will vote on a new electricity reregulation scheme that could duplicate the anti-cansumer mess we just witnessed in '

Sacramento. Uncle Sam's energy regulators want to establish a new Rubiks' cube plan for electricity markets, which would impose vast new '

federal control over state and local electric utilities. The plan hopes to lower prices and expand efficiency of the national electricity market by requiring, private power-generating companies across the country to come under the authority of newly created Regional Transmission . Organizations. ,

Washington regulators .at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] who contrived this new federal power grab - no pun intended - falsely label their plan a form of pro-competition deregulation. That's a stretch, to say the least. Deregulation should not require 603 pages of new rules.

It should not cost $750 million to implement. And if this is'deregulation, why does the flow chart of this organizational redesign make the 1993 ,

Hillary Rodham Clinton socialized medicine plan seem sane and comprehensible by comparison.

. .

'

I . ..

, . .. . . .

, .

The new scheme also appears to create clearly definable winners and losers - and it should be no surprise that the winners are the politically powerful states. Places like New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho and many Southern states are expected to see utility prices rise under this beggar thy neighbor scheme, while more of their power gets exported to the major power using centers like California, New York and Chicago.

What is unexplainable about this new spider web regulatory scheme is what the policy problem is here that Congress is trying to solve. For .

years and years, electricity prices have been falling in the United States. This is precisely what the Depadment of Energy concedes, when..it recently noted that over the past century, '"the electric power industry has generally been marked by substantial growth in capacity and ,generation and dramatic declines in price." A Cat0 Institute report finds that the average household pays less than one-third in wage-adjusted

Supporters of the new federalization idea hope that it will reduce utility &sts by $1 billion annually. But Thomas Lenard, the respected energy analyst at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, notes that the overall production capaclty of electricity could easily fall under this new plan

prices for electricity today as did the equivalent household in 1950. '

. .

I . . I . .

. . I . .

I . . ., : I. .

. . . . . . ...' . ' *. . . I . ... ' .

be'cause of the added risk element to new investmentifrom this new untested.regulatory regime. That would mean higher, not,loWer utility . - '

prices. Mr. Lenard's warning is worth repeating and demandsthe upright attention of Congress: "If FERC contin'ues on its currentpath, the

That woulctchase Republicans out of office en masse. '

Congress should reject the new federal reregulation of electricity 'markets. Yes; the electricity markets sho.uld be &ly deregulated, but deregulated the 'right way. That would mean precisely the opposite of what Congress is considering and what California tripped over in recent months. .. .

Deregulation means that the federal regulatory apparatus is dismantled, not empowered. As Mr. Reagan proved, true deregulation does not '

.'California electricity mistake will be repeated at the federal, level, and the next electricity crisis may affect the entire nation." . . 4 .

- , . . . . . . .

q .. . a . . . : : .

I '

. , '

I I '

I . . I . .

. .

I . . . . . .

. .

require 600 pages of new law; it just requires a stroke of the pen.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

..;I' ' '

**r , , '

I 1':

~ t ; " .

. . I

'LOAD-DATE: July 16,2003 ' . . . .

Copvriaht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Ail rights reserved.' Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

. . . . . .

I

I

. .

, .

I

... . , , ' 1 .

? .

. . . .

I

1

. .

I

I . ' . . . I

. - I. . .

' I !

. . - .

* .

. . -, . .

I ,Document .Links.: .

Start of Document. SECTION: '

:LENGTH: . ' . HEADLINE: .

- BODY: '

LOAD-DATE:

BY Li N E:

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A20

LENGTH: 870 words '

qr k3 HEADL1NE:'Winning the tax-cut wrap-up

... I ., , I

Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc. i '

The.Washington Times

. . ' Mayz22, 2003, Thursday, Final Edition. ' . ' . .

. .

.I.. . I

IPh I?,! BYLINE: By Stephen Moo&, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES ' .

bc, . '

' . '

. . I . .

' . 0 '

. . .

. . .: -.

,,,q BODY: v, Viktory on the tax bill is so close now that taxpayers and investors can taste it. Let's just hope that Republicans don't find a way tosnatch - defeat out of the jaws of victoiy. As one influential Senate aide confided to me yesterday, 'We're very close to winning, but don't forget, we're

'

the, party that has a tendency to shake salt on our pudding pie." '

hc. One strong confirmation of the extent of the victory for tax cutters last week in the Senate is that the left has gone apople&c over'the'tax bill plj that passed by 2 votes. One of my common lV and radio sparring partners, a former Clinton administation'.econornist, moaned, the other day

Even better news comes from Monday's Wall Street Journal.. The front page story screa,ms: "Tax Cuts Are 8igger Than They Look in

Ahh, music to my ears. Here is what has the Journal's reporters all worked'up in a frenzy: "The tax cut approved by,the Senate *uld repeal. the tax that shareholders pay on dividends. It would allow investors to shield half their dividends from income taxes this year and all dividends

.c2 ' . I

1 'This was a complete victory. for your side. There is no way to sugar coat this setback.for the Democrats. Congratulations." . . .I '

! . . , ' . Budget." '

.

. . for.the next three years. [Hooray.] After that, the dividend tax would return in full." . .

' Now here is my favonte part: "But neither friends nor foes of the dividend tax expect Congress to reinstate the tax in 2007.': If the dividend . is permanently repealed, the real price tag of the tax bill is at'least $700 billion.

Getting me dividend tax to zero, if even for three yea&, is a very big deal. If you had asked me at the beginning of the. year, what are, the chances'of getting 51 votes in the Senate for a full elimination of the dividend tax in the United States, I would have said about the same likelihood that the Cubs and White Sox will meet in the World Series [which Vegas oddmakers say is a 1 in 1,000 longshot]. Well, we just hit

I . .

.

,' thejackpot. ' . ._

So what do House and Senate negotiators need to do now to take the best of both bills and pass a truly heroic and historic pro-growth tax bill?. . #

.

.. . Three things: . .

1. Eliminate the nasty tax increases in the Senate bill. The Senate bill contains $70 billion in tax increases on Americans workers and companies doing business in foreign countries. These provisions are ill-designed and economically unjustified. Republicans should not be in the game of raising taxes on anyone. The House: should work to pare down the size of these tax hike offsets.

2. Provide tax relief, not $20 billion in handouts to the states, The tax cut is the b a t relief that Uncle'Sam can possibly give to the fiscally . strapped states, Sending $350 billion back to state taxpayers is a powerful stimulant to local economies. Moreover, states should cut back on their spending during these tough times after a decade of rampaging spending .by governors. Most states doubled their budgets over the.past 10 years. The last thing they need is free money from Congress to continue'on with the spending spree. And what is the logic of; Congress 'taking money from a person living in Iowa bringing it to Washington, then sending it back to Iowa? Why not cut taxes at the federal level as much as possible and let Iowans raise their own taxes if need be?

3. To provide more economic punch to the tax bill, cut the capital gains tax, too. The Bush plan provided a capital gains tax for those who own stock in companies that retain earnings. The House bill cuts the capital'gains tax to 15 percent. The Senate bill has neither provision. The evidence is clear that when we cut the capital gains tax, the stock market rises and capital gains revenues rise. This tax .bill needs to cut the dividend and the capital gains taxes.

The House and Senate have now passed tax bills that are both explosivefy pro-growth and a major step forward in the never-ending battle to reform the tax system. One of the nation's top economists, Brian Wesbury of Griffin, Kubik and Stephens of Chicago, says this tax bill could turn out to be"the best pro-growth.tax bill since the Reagan tax cut in 1981."

. . .

I

. . . . . . . .

I I I . .

* .

. . . e.. I'

. . . .

He also predicts that if a tax bill with the positive features or the. House and Senate.versions passes, we.could see a strong economic and. .

stock market recovery starting in the second half of 2003 and .right through.2004. Republicans should like that scenario..

propose rzising it back up'to 35'percent in 2007. Of course, you can make'a lot of money gambling that Congress will do monumiecltally stupid things, but in this case I agree with the Wall Street Journal assessment that when we get to zero, we will .stay there.

If the tax cutters prevail, in just three years President Bush will have succeeded in eliminating the death tax and!he dividend tax while . . ..

lowering the top tax rate from 40 percent to 35 percent. One step.at a time, this' president is taking us do.wn the'path to the promised land of a

. # , I

' ' I Of course, the gamble is that once we get the dividend tax.dawn to zero,'that no one ifl Washington would actually befoolishenough to. .' .: . .

'

. _

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . bu-in.

simple, fair and pro-growth flat tax.

Shhh. Don't tell anyone. . ! '. ,I' , . . . .

. .

. . i t ' , ,'

. . ': Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

LOAD-DATE: May 22,2003

/

I

I

CoDwiQhl 0 2005 LexisNexis; a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights:resenred. .Your use 'of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them. ,

. .

I

! .

. .

. . I

. . . .

. !I . .

' ' I

. . - .

. .

. . . . .

. .

... . ,

I .

. .

I

1 . .

. .

. . . .

I

. .

I

I

I

. I

.. . . !

I

I

I

I

I , Document,Lihks: . Start of Document SECTION: ' .

HEADLINE: BY LINE:

:LENGTH: .

'!. 00 DY; LOAD-DATE:

. .

(4 i+ :J.

, . . I . . 'I

Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc. The' Washington Times

. . . May A 3 , 2003, Tuesday, Final Edition : ' . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. AI 7 ,

! LENGTH: 669 words . .

U?

P+l , :

)*4 BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES '

. . .I.. . . .

I . , . . tUr HEADLINE: Taxation .. . . or confiscation? ' ' . .

b% . , . .

. .

. . . .

I

I

. ,. . .

. . , ' . ! , . ,

. .

1 1 I I I I I I. I.

BODY: q. The other day Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was asked by a repocer why he opposes President Bush's tax cut when

Back in 1963, Kennedy cut income taxes by 30 percerit 'and the economy soared, and now, coke, Mr. Bush wants to do:somethlng similar:

" his brother, President Kennedy, advocated,an even greater percentage cut 40 years ago.

.

k Here was part of Mr. Kennedy's response to the apparent contradiction: "The tax laws'at that time were 90 percent on income. They were '4 effectively confiscatory."

Hold the phones, folks. We now have one of the most liberal members of Congress conceding that tax rates above 90 percent are confiscatory. At a 90 percent tax rate, the worker or investor gets to keep 10 cents for every additional dollar earned, and the government snares 90 percent. Yes, we can now all agree, that such a policy is confiscation.

What, one naturally wonders, do Mr. Kennedy and other liberals think of an 80 percent tax or a 70 percent tax. Is that rate of tax excessive? Where exactly do we draw the line between tax fairness and a tax mugging? Could we all agree at a minimum that any tax of over 50 percent is unfairly confiscatory?

It may surprise Mr. Kennedy to learn that thanks to the many layers of tax we impose on Americans who engage in the virtuous behavior of saving money, these savers often face an effective tax rate that can reach 70,80 and even 90 percent. This happens because the IRS imposes multiple layers of cascading taxes on the same dollar that is saved. These taxes include the income tax, the capital gains tax, the interest income tax, the corporate tax and then finally the death tax.

Consider the dividend tax, which is the main subject of the Bush tax cut plan. Some people like Warren Buffet complain tha! it is unfair to cut the tax on dividends for rich people like him. [He is free not to take the tax cut if he doesn't want it.] In any case, many millions of Americans not nearly as rich as Mr. Buffet pay taxes twice for dividends. The company must pay a 35 percent tax on the profits that it earns and then if that after-tax money is paid to the shareholders in a dividend, they get smacked with a tax as high as 38 percent. That's a 73 percent tax on dividends. ,

4 ' I

Aha, here we have a confiscatory rate. of tax on owners of stock; And as such, isn't.Mr. Bush then right to call for the end of this doubletax on ' tax fairness grounds alone? .

Most Americans would say yes. Polls over the past 10 years have consistently found that the majority of Americans think that no family in the United States should have to pay more than 25 percent of its income in taxes. As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out in reviewing these' polls, the 25 'percent cap includes all taxes: sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, cigarette taxes, business taxes, car taxes, you name'it. The government is not welcome to more than one-fourth, no matter whether we are talking about Bill Gates, or the janitor who cleans Bill Gates' office at night.

The lefl in. the United States defines "tax fairness" as soak the rich. If Britney Spears or'Kobe Bryant earn too much money this year, according to the greed and envy warriors, tax it away from them. By contrast, most people define tax fairness as a policy wherein'all Americans live by the same set of rules. And those rules or laws should be fairly applied to all.

This is the basis for a, just society and one that allows Americans to keep the dividends from their hard work and enterprise. It is the American way.

There are many economic growth,,and,job creation justifications for enacting quickly the Bush tax cut. The tax plan win clearly add value to the sputtering stock market. But one rationale for the tax cut that has been overlooked is that ending the double tax on dividends would 'create a fairer tax system for all of us: Mr. Kennedy may not agree with that, but his brother surely did.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

.. .

'. .

I I . . I

... -. . . I

. .

I

. . . I

e

I. ._ I

' I '

. ! . '

. . ,

. . . . . I

' 1 7

LOAD-DATE: May.l3,2003 ' . .

Copyriaht43 2OOS.LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. I ' ' Your use of this service is governed by Terms Conditions . Please review them..

I I

, . . ': ' !. . .

. . . . . . . . .

. .

c- . I .'

. .

:. ' I

.. , I ...

I

. . I . .

. . C.L. I I ,

' .I'

. . . .

'i . . . - - . . .. , '

. . . . , . I . .

. I . . ._ ' ! . '

: . . I : .

_ . . .

. . . . . . 4,,.

: , '1,

I

. .

. . . . . . . I .

. . . . I

I . ' . . I

. .

I

I

. .

1:

. -

, ! I ,

. .

.

. .

_...

Docunient Links: Start of Document SECTION: LENGTH: HEADLINE: BYLINE: BODY

8 - - LOAD-DATE:

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. BO1

Copyhght 2003 News World Communications, Inc: The Washington Times

April 6,2003, Sunday, Final Edition.

,.. . LENGTH: 709 words . .

I . .

. . . 1'

1

I

HEADLINE: Tax plan revival?

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

BODY: News commentators around the country are celebrating the recent vote in the Uniied States Senate to slice in half the size of President Bush's bold tax cut plan. A New York Times editorial trumpets the vote as a triumph for "fiscal sanity in the Senate." CNN [the Clinton News Network] could hardly contain its glee when it described the action in Congress as na devastatiFg setback for the president's tax cutting agenda."

It's not surprising that the liberal-biased media applauded the no vote on the tax plan. The folks at the indispensable Media Research Center find that "news" items on Mr. Bush's $725 billion tax relief plan have been running "at least 4 to 1" against the proposal. The media is not serving as a neutral judge of the Bush tax plan; they are serving as its executioner.

But Mr. Bush's tax cut is not dead nor should it be. With every passing day there are further flashing signs that the limping economy desperately needs this tax cut stimulant. With consumer confidence recording its fourth straight month of negativity, the stock market bears still growling with discontent, and the manufacturing sector still bleeding jobs, a tax cut stimulus would provide the U.S. economy with the kind of adrenaline rush that a 3 point shot does in the waning minutes of a tied NCAA basketball game during March Madness.

Tax cuts clear away barriers to new, job creation and new business investment. This economic growth strategy worked for John F. Kennedy in . . the 1960s; it .worked for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s; and it will work again for Mr. Bu$h now. . .

So why the temporary setback in the Senate? George Voinovich of Ohio, one of the three Senate Republicans who bucked his own party on the tax qote, said taxes should not be cut during a time.of war. Nonsense. The best way to assure victory in this war against terrorism is to stoke the fires of America's powerful engine of economic growth so that it's running again on all cylinders. This is precisely the strategy Mr. Reagan used to win the Cold War. We triumphed against the Soviet Union thanks to a combination of vast military and economic su,periority. The goal of the, terrorists is to disable the U.S. economy. Pro-growth tax cuts are a powerful defense mechanism to foil this strategy.

The top Senate Democrat, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, complained last week that the,Bush plan will blow a grenade-sized hole in the .

budget deficit;* Deficit spending is indeed a big problem in Washington these.days. But it is the absence of speedy economic growth [as we, grew awustomed to in the 1980s and lSSOs] that has thrown the budget into severe imbalance. Without American small businesses making. . profits and with unemployed workers. unable to find decent-paying jobs, how in the world does Mr. Daschle think Americans $11 generate the

Growth and expenditure restraint are the keys to eliminating red ink on Capitol Hill. If President Bush's tax plan increases economic growth by just 1 percentage point a year and if federal expenses are cut back to the rate of inflation, we will have a balanced budget by the year 2006 and we will even have a $100 billion surplus. Even in Washington, that's a lot of money.

The crown jewel of the president's tax plan is the elimination of the dividend tax on owners of stock, which is more than half of all Americans. '

The economics firm Kudlow and .Co. estimates that just that one provision would increase stock values immediately by 5 percent to 15 percent. That boost to the stock market would increase the net worth of American families by between $500 billion and $1 trillion. The Heritage Foundation economic forecasting model says the president's tax plan would create 3 times as many new jobs as the Senate Democratic alternative.

The White House said again this week that the president will not compromise on his tax plan if the alternative means more jobs lost and less .economic growth than America is capable of achieving. And that is exactly what the alternative means. Fight on, Mr. President. Your critics.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cat0 Institute and president of the Club for Growth.

'

tax revenues to balance expenditures and ieceipts? , . .

. .

don't have a leg to stand on. . . e.1 .

LOAD-DATE:Apd7,2003 . ' .

. . I

. . . .

a

. ..

. - I .

.. . I'

. . . .

":: ,

Copyriqht Q 2005 LexisNexis', a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

I I

I

I . .

. . . . . .

. . . .

. .a I

I . . .. . . ' .

c- . .

I . . . . r'l' , , '

: . '4,

. . I

. .

... .

I I I

I

I

I

. . . , I .

. : . . . . .

I I I I I. I I

I

-, . .

Document Links: . ' 1 .

. . .

I . . , . ( . I

Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times I I..

. . . . ' ' March 10,2003;. Monday, Final Edition ' . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. ~ 1 6 .

. . . ' : I . LENGTH: 829 words . I . . I

I

. . . I

HEADLINE: Challengeable from supply side

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO'THE WASHINGTON TIMES

BODY: One of President Bush's top and most talenled economic advisers, Glenn Hubbard., has resigned as chairman of the Council of Economlc Advisers. As his successor, the White House has chosen Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw.

This is a pivotal position in the.White,House team, because although both Treasury Secretary 'John Snow has proven to.be a strong. spokesman for the administration's economic policies, he is not a professional economist; nor' is National Economic Committee Chairman .Steve Friedman. It is imperative that Mr. Bush put a strong and persuasive advocate of supply-side economic policies in this job both to help sell the financial benefits of4he current tax cut plan and to pursue even bolder pro-growth policies down the mad.

Professor Mankiw is not that man. I say this never having met or spoken to Mr. Mankiw. I say this as someone who has read his writings.

The Bush administration should4oo before they go'fonnrard with this appointment. They should read before they leap. I would refer the White House to the third edition of his book, "Macroeconomics? In that book, Mr. Mankiw refers to Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics advisers as "charlatans and cranks." And here is an incriminating passage from a section of the book about the Reagan years titled 'Charlatans and Cranks:"

"An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. €ven though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenuqq would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to 'cut taxes,. viewed this outcome as ,far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this .extra effort would offset the direct effects,of .lower tax rates,to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the' face of lower tax rates.

"Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s." 1

.

'

. .

. . .

It gets k r s e . Here is the conclusion.of Mr. I ' Mankids analysis of the Reagan years: .. . .

"People on fad diets put their' health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise."

Never did President Reagan nor any of his economic advisers predict that the tax rate cuts would increase tax revenues. They merely predicted that the revenue losses from the tax cuts would be lower than anticipated.

These insulting.passages display an enormous level of ignorance about the economic reality of the 1980s. Mr. Mankiw echoes the classic liberal Keynesian attack against the Reagan economic policies that created an 18-year expansion and a $16 trillion increase in wealth. Wasn't that a "desirable result?"

Mr. Mankiw seems unaware of, or else he has negligently ignored, the economic reality that tax revenues doubled between 1980 and 1990. Where was the loss of revenues that Mr. Mankiw moans about? Mr. Mankiw should read Larry Lindsey's book "The Growth Experiment,". . which carefully documents the increase in tax revenues from high-income individuals after the Reagan income tax Cuts.

The latest edition of the ,bok has omitted these passages. Perhaps Mr. Mankiw has seen the errors of his wa'y [hopefully], or perhaps he shrewdly realized how damaging theseaquotes might some day be to his future political viability - to borrow a phrase fm Bill Clinton.

But for several years he was indoctrinating young economists with wrongheaded thinking about supply-side economics. And the statements are matters of the public record that no doubt would come back and haunt Mr. Mankiw if he were to get the job of selling President Bush's .

I I 1

. . . . _

. .

' . . *. . I' . . . I

.. . . .

. I

. .. . 1

E

. .

. I

,i I I

I

. . . .

. . . . . . . : . .

I .

. . . Supply-side.,policies. ': 7- . . .

I : Mr. Mankiw was,atso an informed adviser to presidential hopeful John McCain in the 2000 election. Mr. M'cCain attacked Bush's'economic ' - , and, tax cut agenda. This, too, does not inspire confidence in Mr. Mankiw. ?:

I The good news is there are,a multitude of bnllianl supply-side academics who would be superb chief economists Bt the White House.'I am , thinking of ta'lented people like. Brian Wesbury of Chicago, Richard Vedder ofOhio,University and David.Malpas. . . of Bear Steams. . .

Mr. Mankiw is right about one thing. The economics profession is filled with too many charlatans and cranks. .Lei us hope'that Mr. Mankhwis'

.. . , , -. -. - . .

. . , . ' . . y

s: r. . .

. . . . . .

. . , . . .

I . . . . C . m I . . notoneofthem. . I ' * Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

. LOAD-DATE:' March 0,2003 I ' . . , . . -. . CoDyriQht 6 2005 LexisNexis,'a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights.resenred. , ..' ' . . ' .

Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions Please review them. . . , ., '

i . .

. . . . . .

. . . . _ . I

. . . . . . ... . , .

, I

. . . . _ ' I

1 . ' . . . . I

I 1'"' ' I

. .

I

. . . .

".

. .

. .

, : , I

. . . .

I

I I

-, . .

I . I . m. ' . ' j . ,

-...

Document. Lf Aks: : . . . . Starl of Document SECTION: . .

- !. ' BODY: LOAD-DATE: .

' I I .I II ..I

\, ' . .

: . , j . Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc.;

The Washington Times

. .'February 6, 2003;Thursday, Final Edition ' . . . . .

. . . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A20 ,

#.. . L€NGTH: 777 words ' . . . . I PJ

, Ph ' p,~ BYLINE: By Stephen Moore , SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES.

@ HEADLINE:'Spending.orgy . , . in behemoth budget, I

9 :

' . . I .

I

. .

' iph, . . BODY ' Whatever happened"t.0 the GOP'S crusade against bioated government? President Bush's $2.25 trillion budget released Monday is.almost 30

' '' percent larger than the budget he inherited three years ago. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, the budget has grown by 50

d

cr percent..If the Republicans are fighting a war against big spenders, the. big spenders are winning. ' E*b . ' I

. .

. I

'' D .

! I , . .

. .

.. .

*# . .. ps There is much to admire in President Bush's budget released Monday.

h' The president's $670 billion tax art will propel economic growth and deprive the spenders in Washington of dollars they would otherwise .

. squander. The proposal to turn more control of Medicaid over to the states is ingenious - and has the potential to spawn health-care reforms at the state level in a manner similar to the dramatically successful state-based welfare reform in the 1990s.

The White House also deserves praise.for calling for a substantial expansion of lRAs so Americans can build privately owned pools of capital. This will increase the savings rate in America; will move us closer to a genuine,flat tax that ends punitive tax treatment of saving and investment; and will make Americans more financially secure and less dependent on. government programs in the future.

But in this budget, as in President Bush's first two, there is way too. much government spending. President Bush has requested a 4 percent increase in discretionary programs..Given the $200 billion to $300 billion in deficit spending expected this year, and given that we may soon,

. be fighthg a costly war in the Middle East, 4 percent increases in domestic programs - funding far the Legal Services Corp., the National Endowment for the Arts, Bilingual Education, and other such oinkers - i s excessively generousoh the extreme. Domestic discretionary spendin should be at most frozen at current levels at least until the budget is brought back into balance.

If history is any guide, the 4 percent increase in spending is likely to be a floor, not a ceiling on expenditures this year. In recent years, . congressional appropriators have nearly doubled President Bush's spending .requests. Consequently, the discretionary budget has grown by' nearly 15 percent in Mr. Bush's first two years in office - more than ,it did in President Clinton's first four years in office. In fact, Mr. Bush is on a pace to be the biggest spender in the White House since Lyndon Baines Johnson.

. .

9 .

,

It's not just Democrat obstructionism - in fact, discretionary spending .has, after an initial decline, rapidly expanding since Republicans gained control of Congress in 1984. In their qrst three budgets [fiscal 1996-981, the Republicans increased domestic spending .NW83 billion ' kompared to a $155 billion increasein the three years prior to Republican control of Congress. Not a single Cabinet agency.has been . eliminated. And few of the 300 federal programs that were targeted for closure - a list that included the National Endowment for the Arts, the Legal Services Corp., bilingual education funds, urban transit grants, and Goals 2000 - have actually been terminated. President Bush should call for a Commission to Terminate Wasteful, Inefficient, and Unnecessary Federal Programs.

Spending also is growing faster than the economy, as the Table shows. We are now back to Uncle Sam pick pocketing 20 cents of every dollar we earn. That does not include the money that states and cities take from our paychecks;

President Bush must make the &se that during times of war, spending on domestic programs needs to be curtailed until the crisis is over. In most wartime periods in American history, domestic spending has fallen so the nation's resources could be fully deployed to defeat foreign menaces.

The war on terrorism, is the top national priority for our government today.

Fixing the economy is a close second. Bath of those priorities are compromised when congressional appropriators waste scarce tax dollars' on domestic pork and special-interest projects.

. . . .

"Mr. Bush .can reverse the spending spree that has stained his presidency and defend his spending priorities by starting to make aggressive use of the veto 9en. Virtually every spending bill Congress has sent to his desk over the past two years has deserved a veto stamp. Powerful .presidents like Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt used the veto to great end to force their spending poorities on;Congr.ess,.As Mr. . Reagan said, "Controlling government spending is like protecting your virtue; you just have to learn to say 'no.' "

, I . .

. I

. _

! . .

I

. .

_ . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. I . . Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cat0 lnstitufe and .presidentof the Club for Growth; ' ' "

. . . . . 1 , .

.! ' :. . . . ' .' I LOAD-DATE: Fehary 6,2003 .

I ! I Copyright 0 2005'LeXisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. .. . .:, , . ,

' . . . . I-- . . .

1 - . Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions Please review them. : I

. . , . . . . . . . . . ' I

I

1 . . . . . . . .

.. - . .

I

. . I

. . . . . . . .

I ' . yll.,, .

I '. 4' '

1 . b S , , '

: . '1, '

I . . , . . . . . . '. . ,

I '

. . . .

. ..

C

. . . ' i . . ' . .

. . I .

. . . _ .. .

I .

. I . .

I I

I

. . . .

. .

I

. . . .

. . . . !i

. . I

. .

. I

. - .

I

I

;. . ' .

1

I . . . ,( . .

Document Links: Start of Document SECTION: '

HEADLINE: .

BYLINE:

:LENGTH: .

!. - BODY: LOAD-DATE: . \,

: . ' . I \ .

. . '

Copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc;

. . January 28,2003; Tuesday, Final Edition ' . '

The Washington Times ,

. . . . . . . .

SECTION: .COMMENTARY; Pg. AI9 .

.I.., . . ' LENGTH: 910 words 1 Tr LD HEADLINE: Snow forecast pl.. , :

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES'. IF*.. . . r.4 BODY: . .

I

. .

I

. .

1 1 .

, .

. .

. .

.. .

qp The Daschle-Democrats are on the war path on the economy. They are crassly rooting against a recovery, and they are working like an ies of wood ants.behind the scenes to erode any and all of President Bush's economic initiatives - including most prominently his bold tax cut .

'lo plan. Anything that would hasten ,an economic growth' revival before the 2002 elections, they reflexively oppose.

pL Now we will-f,nd out whether that opposition also applies toany person who wishes to spur faster economic growth. fod&, President Bush's 1" Treasury secretary nominee John Snow, the former chief executive officer of CSX Railroad, goes before the Senate for confirmation

.

hearings. Some Senate Democrats have been threatening to convert these hearings into an-ugly and coordinated campaign of character . . : assassination against Mr. Snow. Conservatives have become all too familiar with the brutish poljtics of personal destruction that the Senate .

Dernocmts are capable of with regards to many of President Bush's judicial nominees. .

It's high time that conservatives in the Senate fight back if those tactics are brought to bear against Mr. Snow - who is an exceptional choice for the job.

I must confess I know John Snow personally, like him very much, and have an unqualified admiration for his pol$cal .views and his supply-side instincts. We met when we both served on the Kemp Commission on Tax Reform. What became clear during those months is that Mr. Snow wants what the vast majority of Americans want: a radically simplified, single-rate tax system that clears away the barriers to ,

growth in the IRS tax code, eliminates unfair subsidies, flattens tax rates, and doesnT require hoards of accountants, lawyers, and Valium "

pills to figure out tax liabilities.

.Jack Kekp tells me John Snow is "thoroughly oh the supply side when it comes to the case for lower tax rates." He is also a free'tmdet and an inflation hawk. There's very little in this man's record not to like from a policy standpoint.

'.

John Snow has a sterling record of accomplishment as a railroad executive. When he became CEO of CSX he helped turn this once-moribund railroad into a profitable enterprise -though it certainly has gone through through rough patches. His stewardship has created wealth for shageholders and tens of thousands of jobs for rail workers.

Any case against Mr. Snods professional capabilities will be weakened considerably, given that several unions have written' letters to President Bush commending him for choosing Mr. Snow for the Treasury secretary slot. .Byron Boyd, the president of the United Transportation Union writes: "The thoughtful and successful approaches that CSX has taken on safety and labor relations are but two examples of John's ability. ... I urge the Senate to confirm him expeditiously."

In this post-Enron political environment where every CEO is a member of a suspect class, the Democrats are expected to attack Mr. Snow for receiving multimillion-dollar bonuses and loans. There is no smoking gun here. Mr. Snow's compensation packages were in no way out of . .

line with the incentives given to CEOs of, similarly-sized companies.

To get top'talent - like John Snow.- firms must pay top dollar. This is the economic reaiity of the marketplace. Why'should making money for 'successfully running a company be invalid? And if it is, how in the world was Robert Rubin ever confirmed as Treasury secretary? Mr. Rubin made far more money running Goldman Sachs than Mr. Snow has. So did Sen. John Conine, New Jersey Democrat, also a partner at Gold man.

, .

I' ...

' # .

Why is making.money only a crime when the wealth creator is a Republican? . .

Democrats will also certainly useJhe Snow confirmation hearings as their first opportunity to savage the president's economic plan in a public forum. That's fair game. Mr. Snow must not back off. He, and the Senate Republicans must assault the'assaulters. The Republicans should recite the history of supply-side tax reduction successes under John F. Kennedy and Mr. Reagan and even Mr. Clinton, when he signed the capital-gains tax cut in 1997.

They should ridicule the Democratic plan, which stimulates nothing but growth in government - and provides about one-f&.the -tax relief for

..

I , , I . I . . . .

. . . . .

. . I '

., I ? .

. . . ! . ' , .

. . . .(I) I:

. I' . . ' . . . ' . @ ._ , , ' _ . . . ' . ".

. .

. . . . . .

_ . Americans than the president's i a n does. ., . .. ._

. The Republicans in the Senate : but most ,irnportantly,'Mr. Snow himself -,should not suffer fools gladly. If the Democrats attack the taxccut . I .' plan for being "fikally irresponsible," Mr. Snow should ask his accusers,why they vote to continually pad spending bills with_.billions,of dollars

' of pork. and multibillion-dollar progiam expansions with more debt spending - as they did.last week.with a $390 billion appropriatiops bill. If ' they attack Mr. Snow's,business acumen, he should point out that almost none of these erosecutors have ever run a business themselves, or met a payroll,themselves, teat wasn't 'paid for with. taxpayer.dollars.

With the economy showing further signsaf weakness in recent weeks (fouhh-qua?er.2002 GDP.growth is now estimated& an anemic rate of 9 percent], the country desperately needs the presidentls economic,growth' and jobs tax cut.

.

. . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . . .

What the presidentktax plan needs is dogged, determined, an&mqelling defenders. This is Mr. Snow's first. big test. My bet is that he will pass with fling colors'- much to the disappointment of the Daschle-Deqocrats.

. .

. ' . '

' . . ,

' .I

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. I . .

. -. . . . . .

. . . .

LOAD-DATE: January 28,2003 . .

CoDvriaht 0 2005 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inci All rights reserved. . ' . .

'Your use of this service is governed by Terms 8 Conditions . Please review them. , . . , , . ' . :

.. . . . . I

I

. . .. .

I

I

I

1 I

. . I ,

. . . . ... . , . . . . . .

1

I . . . .

. l i

1' ! . . .

. .

I

. . . .

1

. I

I. . t I

Document Lin.k.: ' . Startof Document .

SECTION: . '

LENGTH: HEADLINE:' '

' BY UN E: BODY:

!. - LOAD-DATE: '

....

. . .

\. 1 . I \ .

Copyright 2003 News World Com,rnunications, Inc: The ,Washington Times

January 10, 2003, Friday, Final 'Edition . . . . .

SECTiON: COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 . '

#.. . ' LENGTH: 737 words

cr3 . . .$J HEADLINE: A tax cut with dividends . . . and discord

BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHIN.GTON TIMES

' b o BODY: .

. .. . :

I

. . 1 - '

\

. . \ * I . .

, . . 4 .

WI President Bush has proposed a 3630 billiontax cut to help pull the economy ut'if,its two-year, bear market rut. In releasing the plan, Mr. '. RE Bush seemed to be announcing to the nation: When it comes to tax cuts to energize the economy, size' does matter. qr .. ' '

He's right. This bold plan - S'times larger than the Democratic alternative - is exactly the right fispal medicine at the right time. Its beneficiaries . p,n will be workers, investors, states, and cities - all of which are front-line victims of anemic economic growth rates. . ..

"I .The centerpiece of the president's plan is elimination of the double taxation of dividends. Currently, dividend income is taxed as corporate ' '

income to the business, and then as personal income to the individual receiving the dividend. This'can result in effective tax rates on dividends as high as 70 percent. These punitive tax rates, in turn, reduce stock values, capital investment, and savings.

John Rutledge, a respected'wall Street economist and a former Reagan administration economist, estimates elimination of the dividend tax could cause stock values to rise by as much as 10 percent, which is good news for the 85 million American shareholders. Gary Robbins, of Fiscal.Associates, says a dividend tax cut will increase gross domestic product by at least $5 for every $1 of reduced tax receipts:Even the Democratic critics of the president's plan unwittingly acknowledged the value of this plan by conceding that the plan would stimulate the stock market. What is wrong with a plan that raises the wealth holdings and retirement incomes of American stockholders, who now comprise almost half of all U.S; households?

The other major feature of the Bush tax stimulus plan is to fast forward the tax cuts from the president's 2001 plan. This, foo,.makes good economic sense.

The phased in tax cuts in the 2001 tax plan were always of questionable economic benefit. Would you go to the store today to buy a product if the store advertised that tomorrow the price will be marked down by,another 20 percent? Delayed tax cuts, delay economic. activity and often have exactly the opposite impa,ct as hoped. They destimulate the economy.

. . .

: , a '

.

President Bush w6ulg accelerate his earlier tax cut. A majority of House and Senate members voted for the tax cut two years ago.'\l\lhy not '

provide the full economic bang of the'tax cut now, when the economy most desperately needs a shot of steroids? Cutting the highest income tax rates raises is especially stimulative because roughly 2 out of every 3 Americans paying the highest tax rates are small business owners. They are the wealth,and job producers in our economy.,

One reason the US. economy is ailing is that business investment has fallen dramatically.' Simultaneously, the U.S.. venture capital industry, which provides the seed corn for new developing 2lst-century companies, is almost entirely dormant today. Why the skittishness? Investors don't see the profit opportunities in new ventures, Costs are too high for new businesses'thanks to government meddling; payoffs are too meager thanks to excessive taxes on capital investment - i.e. the capital-gains tax.and the dividends tax.

The objective of this ,plan is to replicate the tax cut successes of Presidents Reagan and Kennedy. It was JFK who said, "It is a paradoxical truth that when tax rates are too high the economy will never produce enough jobs or enough revenues to balance the.budget." Deficit hawks in both parties will no doubt squeal that this tax pian is unaffordable and will run up the national debt. They are wrong. What Kennedy and Mr. Reagan and now George W. Bush understand clearly is that it is the absence of economic growth that causes runaway budget deficits. ,

.. . . . _

So let the class-warfare Democrats embrace small and impotent policy changes - changes that increasingly sophisticated investor-class voters will immediately identify as fraudulent. The obstructionist Democrats have announced they intend to fight against President Bush's genuine Republican growth package and to wage all-out class-envy warfare. President Bush has 90 million investor-class Americans on his ' side who realize tax rate cuts mean higher stock values and greater retirement security.

Republicans must not shrink from the battle. Bring on the fight.

'

. . '.I '

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow. at the Cat0 Institute.

I

. ,.m:, .

I

. 1

. .

. .

. . -

I

. I

. .

. .

. I

I

- 1

I

. .

. . . ..

. . .

. .

, I

. . ' . .

... ._

! .

. . . .

. . . LOAD-DATE: January 10, ,2003 .. - CowriPht 0 2005 LexisNexis,' a division of Reed Elsevier Inc:All rights resewed..

I I

I Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions. Please review them. I

'! . : . . . ,... . . I .

. .

: I .. .

. ,

Li

e

I

I

. .

' I

. . . .

-. .

I . . .

I ,

. .I" I I

. .

I

0

' I

I

. . . ...

. . I:

. . I

1 I I I I

Document Links: ' . Start of Document

SECTION: , '

LENGTH: .HEADLINE:' '

BYLINE: BODY: -

! LOAD-DATE: '

:,J I'

I .I ., . I

," . *; l...

* - : .

\

\ \ . .

I I \ ' . .

.' Copyright 2002 News World Comrnu'nicaions.'lnc: The, Washington Times

November 5,2002, Tuesday, Final Edition' , . ' . .

. . .

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 ' . '

. LENGTH: 714 words . . . .

. . P. I 03 HEADLINE: Ten. key races for conservatives

'

u3 . .

bm BYLINE: By Stephen. Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES ' , 'N b! BODY: . ~q For obvious reasons,.most of the hullab'aloo-over the elections has revolved around the issue of which party will win the Senate and, the

. qq House on Tuesday, That matters a lot, but some races matter a lot more for conservatives4han others. [Does any conservative really care qr whether Connie Morella, who is trying to get to the left of tier Democratic opponent, wins?] '

I? Quality'matters too. Republicans migM win the Senate: but conservatives could quickly become'disenchanted with the way the weak4need . .

.

moderate centrist Republicans govern. it"4. I

I

I' I

i

I I I F I I

!! 1,

So as an election night primer, I've made a list of the 10 top races for conservatives. These are rpdes involving a clear c1ash.in ideology. between the candidates and where public policy directions could be altered depending on who wins.

[I J California Gov. Gray Davis vs. Bill Simon - California is the big enchilada. Mr. Davis has.been a catastrophically bad governor for four years. , . ..

He has swung a wrecking ball at the economy, dug, the state into a monstrous sized budget deficit ditch, and completely'mishandled the .

electricity crisis, by buying up electric power at twice the market rate - a boneheaded ,move that is costing Californians billions of dollars. Bill . Simon, despite a number of dreadful campaign gaffes, would be a free market conservative in the governors office.

What's atstake? If Mr. Davis wins, it confirms that California has been converted hopelessly into a one party state.

. .

.

[2] Florid+,Gov; Jeb Bush vs. Bill McBride - Mr. Bush should [must] win. He has been a superb governor. .

What's at stake?.'lf Jeb wins, he bekomes the front runner for the presidential ticket in .2008. . . 1

131 New Hampshire Senate: John Suriunu vs. Jeanne Shaheen. The .race is a toss-up.

What's at stake3 First, wnservatives, need the smart free-marketeer Mr. Sununu in the Senate so he can be groomed to be the next Phil Gramm.

. . . ., .

Second, Republicans can't let New Hampshire,. the one conservative foothold in the Northeast, 'go Democratic.

[4] Indiana District 2: Chris Chocola vs. Jill Long Thompson - Pits a classic Reagan Republican vs. a Clinton Democrat. .

What is at stake? If Mr. Chocola wins, it drives a stake through the heart of Emily's List and other radical feminist groups that have spent millions on this race. . .

[5] South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford vs. Jim Hodges - Mr. Sanford, the challenger and former stellar conservative in the US. Hquse against a bumbling incumbent.

What's at stake: Mr. Sanford has a free marke! reformist agenda Iincluding eliminating the state income tax and school choice] that will make conservatives drool.

[6].South Carolina Senate Lindsey Graham vs. Alex Sanders - this is,the Strom Thurmond seat.

What's at stake? Whoever wins will.4kely hold the seat for 50 years.

m Arizona Gov. Matt Salmon vs. Janet Napolitano - Mr. Salmon, another star conservative congressman from the class of '94 against the trial lawyer's best friend.

.

. . . .

I ' 1 . .

. .

. .

' . a:.. I' . .

What's at stake? If Miss Napolitano and her trial-lawyer funders winilhey will move,this .direction. .. . . , .

. .

. I

, " [8] Wisconsin Gdv.lScott McCallum vs.. Jim Doyle - Democrats favored to win here after Tommy Thompson's four-teny stint.-.,- . . ': :. : I . .

What's'at ittake? Priprity No. 1 for the teachers unions and the Democrats is to defund the historic and fabulously successful sch&l voucher program in Milwaukee. '. : - .

. . .[9] Pennsylvania District 15: Pat Toomey vs. Ed O'Brien - Mr. Toomey'should win again in this 'b?tally tough union distridwhose'biggest '.

What's at stake? A Toomey victory proves that pro-free trade, p%:Socjal Security choice, pro-tax cut Republicans can win in Democratic districts. Voters respect legislators who stick to their guns. And lhey,l&e tax cuts loo. All .wobbly Republicans should pay atkentian.

I . . .. .

town is Allentown. , , . . 1

. . ' 4 4 . .

. I

[I 01 New Jersey Senate Doug Forrester vs.. Frank Lautenberg: The battle for the New.Jersey Senate seat leans Democratic. Mr. Forrester . . is do great shakes. for conservatives.

What's at stake? The prihciple that cheaters never prosper. ,

1

. . . .

ah So there you have my lop, 10 list. Did I leave any high,phority races.off the list? E-mail me at smoore@clwbforcvowth.org.

sr3 Stephen Moore is president of the, Club for Growth. '

6. '

i'V LOAD-DATE: November 6,2002

CoDyriaht 0 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All.rights reserved. Yoyr use of this service is governed by Terms 8, Conditions , Please reviqw them. '

. .

. !i

. .

. .

I'

I

... . .

I .

. .

. .

I

, -. .

I

. ...

Docu'ment Links:. ! . Start of Document

SECTION: LENGTH:

'HEADLINE: BY LINE: '

BODY: -'

!. LOAD-DATE:

. . , - . . .

I.., ., . I

\ ' . . ' . I j

.' Copyright 2002 News World Communications, lnc., The, Washington Times

August 30, 2002, Friday, Final'Edition . ,

SECTION: COMMENTARY; pg. M I ' . ' .

I.. . . . LENGTH: 1013words . .

HEADLINE:. Surer way to sustain the planet ' .

BYLINE: 'By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

. .

BODY:. Whenever. delegates from countries around-the world get together it is almost always bad news for freedom and capitalism. The U.N. Earth Summit on "sustainable devellopment" being .held in South Africa has been no exception. .

. . .

So far the conference has been an all-too- predictable bashing of rich nations for holding back the poor nations. The rich nations [read the United States] are asked to do more to alleviate AIDS, more to reduce global poverty, more to protect the Earth's natural @sources, more to feed the hungry, and more to stop mythical global warming. 'All that was left off the list was cleaning all the world's dirty laundry.

Once again we hear the moronic refrain from self-righteous and yet repressive leaders of poor nations that the U.S. with 5 percent of the world's population uses 25 percent of the worlds resources. [No mention that the U.S. also produces more than 25 percent of the world's output - of AIDS drugs, food, vaccines, infant formula, humanitarian aid, and the list could go on to the bottom of the page.]

There is, .overall, a false message of doom and decline in the Earth Summit, as if the Earth's eco-system is on the verge ofcollapse and that huma,n beings are worse off now than in the past. It isn'ttrue. Sure in some of the heartbreaking repressed nations of Africa things'are getting worse: But in the rest of the world things are almost universally gettihg much better - in terms of health, in terms of material progress, and in t e h s of a cleaner environment.

Here are some of the most encouraging trends you will not hear about among the elitist government officials gatheredh South Africa this :

week: .

* Life exMectancy: In the rich countries life expectancy - the broadest measure of heatth and a safe environment - has increased by 30 years over the pastcentury. Even in poor countries life expectancy has risen at an astonishing pace. The average resident of a poor nation can expect to l.ive nearly twice as long as his or her 19th-century counterpart. Most of humanity enjoys better health and longevity than the richest people in the richest countries did just 100 years ago.

Health: Parents should reflect long and hard on one statistic whenever they think life isn't treating them well these days: the death rate of children under 14 has fallen by about 95 percent since 1900: The child death rates in just the past 20 years have incredibly been halved in . India, Egypt, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South Korea, Israel and scores of other nations. Almost all the major killer diseases prior to 1900 - tuberculosis,,typhoid, smallpox, whooping cough, polio, malaria - to name a few, have been nearly eradicated, thanks,to progress in medical know-how almost all of which .originated in the evil capitalist nation called the United States.

* Nutrition and diets have been improving the world over. Gale Johnson, the agriculture expert at the University of Chicago, has discovered. that fewer people worldwide died from famine in the 20 century than in the 19th century - not just as a percentage of the population, but in absolute numbers. That is a spectacular achievement in our ability to feed the planet, given that the world population is some 4 times higher . today than 100 yea? ago.

Education: The world's inhabitants are better educated, not worse, than in prior periods. Illiteracy has fallen by more than two-thirds in the U.S. and even by a greater percentage in many poor nations.

Environment: Economic development is the.best way to clean the environment. Poverty is the biggest impediment to clean air and water.

Consider the.U.S.: Smog levels have declined by about 40 percent, and carbon monoxide is down nearly one-third since the 1960s even ,

though there are nearly twice as many cars. Some of the most impressive advances in cleaning the air have been recorded in the dirtiest cities, including Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Chicago. Airborne lead is down more than 90 percent from 40 years ago. Contaminated drinking water killed hundreds of thousands of Amerlcans annually 100 years ago, versus very few deaths today..

c Natural Resources: By any measure, natural resources have become more available rather than more scarce. Consider copper, which is representative of all the metals. The cost of a ton is only about a tenth of what it was 200 years ago. There is evidence.that oil - the most worrisome of resources because it is mostly burned up and therefore cannot be recycled - has actually beengetting cheaper to produce.

'

I I . . I

. .

I'

What has been the driving force behind this miracubus -progress. Three words: free market &pitatism. 'If only the.intellectual elite'and the . power-holders around the world ,in South Africa this week would go home and deregulate their economies, cut tax rates, expand democracy,

I . and. cut government rules and bureaucracies, we could blaze a path to alleviating world poverty in a generation or two. Jf on_ly,markets, not ._

' governments; controlled the price'and usage of natural resources, we'would see a.further abundance of food, minerals and energy - enough for the entire world to share in the bounty.

The U.N. Earth.Summit is based on a cancerous and discredited creed of ljmits to growth. It is insane .to.hope th.at people who' believe in . .

limits lo growth will create the conditions that nurture .growth. Even the term "sustainable development" is offensive and suggests that . . economic, development and improving the environment are somehow incohpatible - which is precisely the, opposite of the historical record.

Where there is economic development and capitalism, there iszlean. d r and clean water and well-educated citizens and abundant resources

: I .. .

and low disease rates. Where there is nocapitalism, there is an abvndpce of these maladies.

It really is all that simple. .

I , .

I

' The only real limits to growth are created by wrongheaded conferences populated by selfish and'unthinking do-gooders.

Freedom will save the planet - if only governments will allow it.

Stephen Moore is president of ?he Club for Growth. : PC? . . I*c. LOAD-DATE: August 30,2002

Copvrioht 43 2005 LexisNeds, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc; All rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms &Conditions . Please review them. ... .

I

. .

I

I . .

. .

I

I

I

:. I I

. I

. ..

= I I

I i

. .

. I

j

, !

I

Document Links: I

. Start of Document; SECTION: LENGTH: ' , ,

BYLINE: HEADLINE:

. BODY: !. - LOA D-DATE:

I..' . . ' I rn :.. m

. . . ' I - _ . .

,..I .. :.

. ' 1 1 .

,\ ' . . '

Copyright 2002 News World Communications, 'Inc.'; ' . .

, The.Washington Times ,

' July 22, 2002, Monday, Final Edition . . . . . .

. . _ .

sEcnoN: COMMENTARY: pg. ~ i 6 . '

I

' I . I . . . .,.'I

' LENGTH: 692 words . . P4

. Ph HEADLINE: Twisting a rail for fast track on trade

p~ BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES ! . Pb. ?-U

, . . .

P b s

BODY:. Over the years, it would be hard to Cind'a more stalwart free marketer in the Senate.than Larry Craig, Idaho Republican. He has one of the "

, a He has lead the charge on supply-side tax cutting. I have worked with him and his staff on the cgpital gains tax reduction that is so critical to.

. . ' . . ? q 'In highest National Taxpayers Union records in .fighting against big government. . .

I . .. . getting the financial markets out of their 24-month slide. I .

\

I

I

I E t. I E I I.

I i .

"' So why in the world has Mr. Craig teamed up with ultra-liberal Democrat Mark Dayton of Minnesota to sponsor a poison-pill amendment to . President Bushs free-trade bill? This amendment, as the Wall Street Journal recently noted, strikes at the,very heart of fast-track trade negotiations. Under the Trade Promotion Authority bill, \he president negotiates a trade agreement, and Congress agrees to vote up or down on the accord without amending it. Without this assurance, foreign leaders are unlikely to bargain trade agreements that could be eviscerated later by the protectionist twinges that always are present among the parochial interests on Capitol Hill.

. . The Dayton-Ckig amendment would allow Congress to reject any provision of a trade bill that weakens so-called anti-dumping laws. Now this is a really lousy amendment on so many grounds, one hardly knows'where to start attacking. It clearly violates the fast-track

, no-amendment policy. Once, one amendment to a trade treaty is allowed, the dam is broken. So Mr. Craigs rider would. destroy the whole' free-trade process that is. rolling along here.

'Unfortunately, Mr. Craigs amendment plays to the ingrained protectionist reservations about tqde agreements among, congressional members. With the strong support of the labor unions.and the fair trade lobby, it actually passed in the Senate. The anti-*e-trade and free-marqets publication the American Prospect wrote approvingly of Mr. Craigs creation: This is exactly the kind of mischief the Senate always keepsout of trade agreements, because it gums up ttie works in trade accords.

President Bush has,said that he'dll veto the trade bill if the Dayton-Craig amendment isnt extracted. Good &I, Mr. President.

Thisamendment is also bone-headed policy. Therk is no worse feature to our trade laws than anti-dumping penalties. Dumping laws forbid foreign companies from selling products here in the U.S. for 'below production ,costs. Why in the world should that be illegal?.

If a Panamanian fruit-and-vegetable company is dumb enough to sell us bananas at a loss, o r if the Koreans want to sell us steel for below cost, why would we outlaw the.importation of these products. What if the foreign companies Mnted to give us the bananas or the. steel to us for free as a gift? Would we object to that as against our national interest?

Moreover, best-selling author Jim Bovard has shown over and'over again that when nations dump products in the United States, the biggest winners are the American consumers who get low cost goods and services. He has also shown that any time an American company that'is reporting losses in a given year - as most did last year - exports products abroad, those companies are technically guilty of illegal dumping. After all, since they lost money, they by definition were selling goods below cost,

' Ant'idumping la- reflect an exports good, imports bad view of trade that is economically misguided and anti-consumer. The lower the price of imports, the higher Americans real incomes rise, because we can all buy more products for the money we make in an hours worth of work.. , This is precisely why a strong dollar is good for the United States; It makes us richer relative to workers in other nations. I call this Kudlows law. . .

. .

'

shame on Lany Craig, and I say this hth great reluctance because he is a personal friend. But'if he wants 40 be a friend of the American worker and our high-tech, high-wage, free-trade-driven economy, he will repudiate his destructive amendment. '

1

.To paraphrase Woody Allen: Mr. Craig, you never want to be part of a club that would have Mark Dayton as a member.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. '

. .

, .

. .

I

. I

I

I

I

LOAD-DAT.E: July 22,2002 . -

Copyriqht Q 2005 LexisNexis, a division of, Reed Elsevier Inc. All'rights reserved. Your use of this service is governed by Terms & Conditions . Please review them.

I I

'

. . .. . . , . ! I

I-..

i . .. ' I

I

I

I

. I

I . .

I

. I

.. . ,

F

I

I

I

1:

I

. .

., . .

. .

1 - . . Help .

. . View in Printable Form . Docd?%$i'ts%urchased.I New Search ' , :. .

I .

: View Full I Cite I KWIC

Document Links: Start of Document SECTION: LENGTH: HEADLI NE: BYLINE: BODY

'

- LOAD-DATE: '

. .

. .

' . 'Copyright 2002 News World Communications; Inc. , . . The Washington Times ' ' I

. . . .

. .

. .

. March 27,2002, Wednesday, Final Edition '

1% IPJ

. .

I '

SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A14 ' . rb F4 . .'

,%F LENGTH:.881. words, ' #)" . .

I )Q HEADLINE: Campaign flim-flam disguised as reform . I . ..

,pJ, BYLINE: By Stephen Moore, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

.I

t t E 6. t E E I I I

BODY: The campaign finance reform bill that will reach President Bush's desk as early as this week is the most fraudulent legislation in Washington since Hillary Clinton promised she would give Americans heath insurance co3erage they could never lose.

John McCain's creation is not about cleaning up election,s.or fighting political corruption, It is not about weeding big money special-interest influences out of poliiics..It is not about reducing the impact of Fortune 500 firms like Enron.who use campaign contributions to buy corporate

This legislation is first and foremost a jobs protection bill. The jobs it will protect are those of the incumbent members of Congress. If there .were even a thimblefull of genuine integrity on Capitol Hill, members of ,Congress would recuse themselves from this vote since they have the most to gain from it.

How s o ? h e most insidious feature of this bill would prohibit issue-based organizations from running W:or radio advertisements that criticize or praise a candidate in the 60. before an election. This means, for example, that the National Rifle Association could not run an ad .

proclaiming: "Congressman John-Smithereen is a buffoon because he voted four times for gun control legislation." Handgun Control Inc. .

could not, likewise, attack a congressman for his pro-gun votes. ,

What is more fundamental to the constitutional right of free speech than the right to freely criticize the policies of our own government, and by implication the politicians who enacted the laws we find offensive or wrongheaded?.

Imagine this bill had.exided during Colonial days. Patrick Henry would announce that, King George was a big oaf for taxing the Colonies to great excess, and out would come the lawyers and the magistrates to muzzle Henry, on grounds that his critique had come within.60 days of an election.

welfare favors from Congress. . .

:

- .

Political scientists have calculated that incumbents start off every campaign with roughly a $500,000 advantage due to high name recognition and the assorted privileges and perks (such as free mailings) of holding office. Just about the only way to beat a sitting congressman or senator is to educate voters about what they stand for with rapid-fire shots at the incumbent's voting record and behavior in Washington. And this must be done not months, but.days before the elections - when normal Americans who don't live and breathe politics starl paying some modicum of attention. . .

Sen. McCain, Arizona Republican, wishes to stifle competition against incumbents. For example, on nearly a half-dozen occasions, Mr. , ,

McCain has cited the Club for Growth (which I run) as a case study in the need for his campaign finance bill. On CNN recently, Wolf Blitzer asked Mr. McCain why he supports a 60-day advertising ban. "ICs because of outfits like this so-called Club for Growth," he replied. They came into Arizona last year and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars of negative attack ads. No one knew who they were. No one knew who. their funders were."

What has Mr. McCain and his allies nervous is that issue groups like ours actually fund insurgent campaigns against incumbents in both

If the McCain bill is enacted into law, the chances of ousting an incompetent incumbent will be drastically reduced. How can voters be

1.1 '

. . parties. . . .

. .

I

1

. .

. .'

' . I

1 ' I

'.. . . .

I' ,

1 . ' . .

expected to ever "vote the bums out," if they don't know the facts about ho.w their'bum voted?, . . " . . . ..'

, . ' Mr. McCain's campaign bill would lead to less competitive, not more competitive, elections. A recent study of the myriad of campaign ,la& at ' >the state level. by the Jerome Levy Institute discovered that limitations on,campaign-sp.ending and advertising, lead to highec.election rates fqr

incumbenk. .

Is that what voters really want? Under the current laws, incumbents are virtually unbeatable unless they have committed asex offense with.a minor or they've been convicted of some other felony. The average incumbency re-election rate is between 96 percent and 98 percent. It's . .

easier to get somebody out of prison,than Congress. The system is becomipg as farcical.as the elections in China.during Chairman Mao Tse-tung's reign. You'get to vote for whomever you wish so long as it is the one and only person who appears on the ballot.

What we need to invigorate our election process, increase voter partidation, and elect h more diverse and higher-quality Congress .is establish real competition through term limits. That would force turn&&,, and create far more competitive elections. It would.reduce . . corruption, because.special interests wouldn't pour millions of dollars info campaigns if the winner were only going to be in power for six to eight.years. Needless to say, there are no term limits in this McCain bifbdespite the fact that roughly.2 out of 3 Americans support them. _, ,

Perhaps what is most grating of all is the cowardice among our elected oflicials'when they vote for a bill that they know in their minds and ' -'

hearts tramples the Bill of Rights. Many congressional members have even acknowledged publicly'ttieir suspicion that the McCai,n bill is.

5 . . . . . . .

. .. I ,

'

b11.1, .

-. .

.

' I ,l,? unconstitutional. .. . .

l h Yet they still voted for it. P% , . ..

t''V And these are the kinds of people we want to make it harder to de-&?

p-1, Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. h I ,

I I . .

v K~ LOAD-DATE: May 13,.2002 . I

I

' ' Copyright Q 2005 LexisNexis;a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. , Your use of this service is governed by TWms 8 Conditions . Please review them. .

I

. .. . .. .

I' . .

1:. . .

. .

. .

... . . , I

, ! I !

. .

. I

. .. t

. . . .

. .

1

I

* . : ,* The Washington Times"

. 11.1 ,. , I I

', \ . .

: . I \ .

No way to run'a railroad .

February 11,2002 I .

. Section: COMMENTARY . . .

I .

Page: A17 . .

. . a ,.. . . . . .

p-h

If% 7"J bh It's official: h t r a k , the monopoly provider. of the nation's intercity rail ' ' '

r?.p passenger service, is rolling.straight toward a financial train weck. The ..

V Amt~ak .Refom Council .announced-this week that unless major management . '

changes are adopted and unless private sector options are implemented, the '' train service will have to cease operations within the next yearor two. I

Stephen Moore . .

.

P i I

pill .

I

. .

I

Amtrak's own management team acknowledges that without more congressional handouts, train service will have. to be discontinued for the long-distance routes. ,. . .

John Norquist, the Democratic mayor of Milwaukee and a commission ,

member says Arntrak has been lying about its finahcia1 situation for years. Meanwhile, another commission member, Wendell Cox, a transportation consultant urges the privatization option. "Only the private option can prevent billions of dollars of future losses," Mr. Cox writes. .

He is r!ght. This is at least the sixth time in the last 25 years that the railroad has run critically short of finds. Under one plan in the Senate, Amtrak would receive some $50 billion in loans and grants over the next decade to head off insolvency.' When does this madness end?

Five years ago the Republicans in Congress commanded Amtrak management to wean itself off federal operating subsidies once and for all.

The congressional plan required Arntrak to reach financial self-sdficiency by 2002. Amtrak is in worse financial shape today than it was when the new legislative plan was enacted back in 1997. Amtrak makes Enron seem like a well-nm firm by comparison.

- b

L

Amtrak was formed in 1970 when the Nixon administration agreed .to federalize. passenger trains in the wake of the Penn Central ("PC") bankruptcy. The subsidies were to be temporary. But nothing in Washhgton is ever temporary (except for tax cuts). So some $50 billion (in today's' dollars) has been bumed b y h t r a k locomotives already and the subsidies are getting fatter every year.

,

Tt cost taxpayers newly $100 for every h t m k rider. On some routes the

I

'_

. .

I

. .

. .

. I

. .

' 1 ,.

1 . ' ' .

: . ' I

. .

. .

.. .

. .

- .

I . . I

subsidies can reach $300 a passenger. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to get ' . . - .

- these folks rowd-trip tickets on Southwest. Airlines.

Antrak has invested billions-of dollars in'high-speed 'rail dong the Northeast corridor. That has been.,'a colossal waste' of money. The high-speed trains d e only rutuiing'at about 50 percent capacity. Some of.these "super expresses" have carried as few as 40 passengers - one busload - 'in. a . . 304-seat, .... . .

Despite all the money, losses and broken promises of ''finh&ial solvency right I

around the corner,'' Congress is likely to ignore the Counc\l's . recommendations and insread approve a "more of the.same" option for . .

. Amtrak. Amtrak's mknagement will interpret this cop-out as a sign that Congress was never really serious.about requiring the railroad to shed

.

P% pb hopelessly unprofitable routes, to find ways to replace tax subsidies .with gkc, ticket revenues, to tighten :its belt for cost-cutting purposes, and to slash layers

'

I

I '

.

.. .

I . .

12,000-horsepower train with a crew of eight. *I,",, . .. #I' '

. . . r"~,n upon layers of redundant managerial positions. Ph p.il' .Only private 'ownership will force these cost-cutting reforms.

Congress must understand that it is precisely the existing federal monopoly management structure of Amtrak that is ruining rail passenger service in America.

There is no law of economics that says hntrak has to lose money. It has' been Amtrak's ready access to tax dollars that has impeded financial progress and service improvements.

Privatization would not mean the end of rail passenger service. Under one viable plan, proposed by the United Rail Passenger Association, the government would retain control of ownership and maintenance of the tracks and the rest of the physicd infrastructure, just as the government builds and repairs the roads. But operational costs would be covered by private for-profit railroad entities.

I

Congress should immediately lift the monopoly protection of Amtrak, which prohibits private operators from running rail service on government,tracks. Amtrak says it needs this blanket of legal protection to keep out competitors who might "skim the cream" and take away passengers on the most profitable routes. Since none of its routes make money, Amtrak hqs no cream to skim. Private operators could demonstrate that rail passenger service, if operated efficiently, can indeed make money.

Arntrak is a $50 billion lesson in economics learned the hard way - and at the taxpayers' expense. Monopolies provide lousy service, with few consumer choices, and ever-rising costs. The new Amtrak report confirms this and warns Congress not to throw another $50 billion away. Only the privatization option can save the railroads.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

All content 0 2002-, by News World Communications, Inc.; 3600 New York Avenue, NE; Washington, DC 20002 and may not .be republished. without permission.

I

. . . .

' ..

. . . .

. i

. .

. .

. ... .. I .

. :

. . .

. .

I

. .

I

I

" I I

I'

I

. . , : .

i i

All archives are stored on a SA VE (tm) newspaper library system from Mediastream Inc.,' a Knight-Ridder Inc. conipanjl. piiu6 :IJ .P

I . . , ,. :. \ '

I

. .

I. ', . .

I

I

!, I

. .-

I

I

. .

a . I

: I : . .

. . ' ' -1: ,

I'

I

, I I

1 -

The'. Was.hi,ngton' , . Tim.es '

. . . .

.. ' I

.. .

s :

WhoJost the big economic divid,end? '

b!.l'.

I I '

. . . . 4' ' . .

1: I . . V I - , . ' January 27,2002'

Section: €3 . .

' COMMENTARY '

I:.

I

. .

. . . .

. Edition: 2 .

Page:B1 pk Stephen Moore'

Pd

. .. ~b 111ustrati.on: chart (C~~O&BUDGET SURPLUS . . .. . . .

I ,

.. . b in recent weeks, both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and his sidekick, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, have thrashed the Bush p.4

' I

1 . . . White House for squandering-the budget surpluses of the Clinton'era To . .

, !I preserve the surplus, they,want to shelve the future tax cuts, including the elimination of the death tax, in the Bush tax plan. . .

All of these kecriminations about the return of federal deficit spending would be encouraging except that it lacks even a seed of sincerity. Indeed, both Mr. Daschle and Mr. Kennedy have requested $50 billion in additional spending this year. And that comes on top of the 1 1 percent increase in spending Congress already approved this year.

One year ago, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the budget surplus for 2002 would be $33 1' billion. Now, Congress is forecasting a $21 - billion deficit for the year. That's a lot of fiscal slippage in just one year. What in the world happened? Who lost the surplus? Mr. DaschIe and Mr. Kennedy both contend that the major factor behind the evaporating surplus is President Bush's tax cut. They are wrong.

1

. .

Four factors caused the surplus shrinkage (see the accompanying chart). Only one of those factors was the tax cut. But it accounts for less than $40 billion in tax relief this year, out of $2 trillion in tax revenues the government will extract fiom workers and businesses. That's a 2 cent taxcut out of every dollar paid. This crumb of a tax cut is what the Democrats are all hot and bothered about.

The recession accounts for about two-thirds of the surplus disappearance. For 200 1, revenues dropped .I percent, and they won't rise much above 3 to 4 percent this year. That compares with the 8 to 10 percent growth in revenues during the prosperous late 1990s. We've lost about $160 billion in expected revenues for 2002, because 1.5 million fewer people are working and because fewer businesses are making profits for Uncle Sam to tax. '

A government spending spree is the most controllable factor behind the deterioration of the budget outlook and accounts for 19 percent of the lost surplus. Congress is spending money at a faster pace than at any time since the 1970s. A lot of that spending blitz has been a result of the big surpluses.

' I

I

I ' . .

. . . .

I .

. .

. . '

-. . .

I

I

. .

I

I

. .

. ,

. .

I

. 1

. . I

1 I ".*.

. . , - . . I .Appropriators 'interpreted'all that money lying around in the Treasury as an

What, is clear is that Ah*. Daschle and Mr: Kennedy are wrong when they say ., :'

., the primary blame for the fiscal deterioration is the Bush tax cut. By far the " biggest factors have been the recession and incre&ed federal spending. In' , ' \ . : fact, if this year Congress would just hold spending to the Ievel of inflation, there would be at least ,a $SO billion surplus.

.. invitation to spend. . .

I ' pli,i&.!,d .P . .

. .

: . I \ '

. it turns out that about half of the increased spending (over &e 4 percent Congress had originally predicted) was a result of the military and home security expenditures required to fight the war on terrorism - but only'half. As the' Congressional Quarterly recently noted: "Although the ,need to respond'to

.

. ,

' the September 1 1 terrorist: attacks accounted for much. of the increased c? spending, Congress was poised for a big spendgg boost even before then." : e3 Pbl Pd There is reason to worry that the recent fiscal deterioration on the outlay side

of the federal ledger may be the start of a longer term trend of pro-spending PDO policies in Washington. Since 1995, when Republicans first took control of

the House and Senate, spending discipline has eroded with every passing year. One indication of this erosion of fiscal restraint is that when Republicans fust took Congress in 1995 there were some 500 members of the ' h

prB House and Senate who wanted to cut spending more than they wanted to increase it, according to.the National Taxpayers Union calculations. But .in 2000, there were exactly two advocates of smaller govemment. The other 533 House and Senate members wanted bigger government. Only Ron Paul, '

'

Texas. Republican, and Jim Sensenbrenner,'Wisconsin Republican, voted for .

'

less overall. spending. . . I .

Jeff Flake, a freshman Republican fiom Arizona, recently complained' to me , that every vote he has taken in Congress has been for more government' . . . programs and more spending. "I'm still waiting," he says, ''for a vote to cut the. budget$ .

. . He may have'to wait for a long while.

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush must call for a comprehensive reform of the federal budget process to put reasonable caps on government spending - as most states do. Surpluses need to be immediately and automatically returned to taxpayers, before these dollars can be ingested by the appropriators. The president needs a line-item veto.

Most importantly of all, he needs to tell the American people the truth about who lost the budget surplus. Deficits are back, not because of the tax cutters, but because of the big spenders in Congress - the same crowd whose profligacy created the enormous deficits of the 1970s, '80s and '90s. The Daschles and Kennedys of the world need to be hog tied before a new spending spree creates another trillion of debt for OUT children to pay off.

I

Stephen Moore is a semor fellow at the Cat0 Institute. b.,. .

I

I

I . .

All content 8 2002-,'by News World Communications, Inc.; 3600 New York Avenue, NE; Washington, DC 20002 and may not be republished without permission.

. . I

. .

I

. .. .

. ..

.- .

I

I - _ ,

I

. .

, . . . . ..

. . ! ._.__.__._._..._ :. ._._....._._ ; .-.-_._._.__.. ._ .................................. .. . . - ... - . . . .-._...----.--._._._.._.. . ...:'

, "AI1 archives arelsfored on a SATIE (h) newspaper- library system from Mediasiream 'lnc.,' a Kig'ght-Riddw Jnc. compcmy. I . . I_ . .

. . . .. .

! ; : I . .

.. ' I

I .. . I

. . b w i u .

I . . '. .I' . . .

@'I*, ; '#@

' . . .

1

, . . .

. . . .

. .

. . .

. .

'. . ' I

. . . . .

. . . .. I

I ,

. . I

- . .

I .

I

. .

I

1

I

. . . .

I

I

. .

, !. I I

. .

I

. .

. . I

Lexi s N exi sTM Academic , . (*irk :Id 4-

a .

, Copyright 2001 . , I . # . . . . News . World Commumcations, Inc. The Washiason Times \ '.

. . \ . ' . . December 17,2001, Monday,.Final Edition .

. I

. . . SECTION: PART'A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1 9

. . . . .

LENGTH: 1032 words

HEADLINE: 'Food fight bn Capitol . . Hill .I... t-4 .@3

P4

hU .BODY:

I . .

pb BYLINE: Stephen Moore' ' , :

. .

. .

. .

. I

. . ' I ,.

I .

' I I I .

.. .

rc4 Every five years Congress takes on the role of Santa Claus for America's agribusinesses when it enacts a new farm v cr bill. Thanks to years of congressional generosity, the U.S. farm sector is arguably today the most welfare-dependent 0 industry in America 8 1

Pa t + ~ Even though farmers have higher average incomes than do nonfarm taxpaying households, since 1980 American

!

I I

I I. 1 I I I I

fanners have received more than $200 billion.in direct taxpayer assistance. That's'enough money to buy every acre of farmland in America west of the Mississippi River. . .

This week the U.S. Senate will vote on a farm bill that would make the honey pot a whole lot sweeter. It would return rural America back to the Soviet-model commandknd-c~ntrol agriculture policy of yesteryear by establishing a vast network of government established price supports for crops. Its $170 billion, 10-year price tag would make this far and away the most expensive fann bill ever. The subsidies average out to roughly $200,000 of welfare payments for every recipient. And this doesn't even include the billions of dollars in emergency taxpayer aid farmers receive nearly every late s m e r and fall to compensate them for every natural and manmade disaster one can conceive of: floods, drougtds, tornadoes, hail, the Asian market meltdown, the strong dollar, European trade restrictions, and so on.

This year the farm lobby is even wrapping its fbnding request around the flag by suggesting that more gerkrous price supports will help in the war against terrorism.

The 2001 farm bill would re-install the entire infrastructure of a failed price support system that dates back to Fr$nWin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal era.

I

I

Sen. Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, one of the few outspoken critics of the bill, correctly notes that the bill ''ignores decades of experience that grain price supports only encourage the overproduction of crops and guarantees soaring taxpayer bail-outs. "

It was just five years ago that Republicans in Congress enacted the historic- 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, which was intended to phase out crop and dairy subsidies over five to seven years. By now fanners were expected to be weaned '

off agriculture subsidies altogether and the U.S. Agriculture Department was supposed to be bod ing up suddenly obsolete offices.

Tbings haven't tumed out q h e as hoped. Federal fann payments haven't fallen every year as scheduled. Instead, they've increased fiom a low $7.3 billion in 1996 to $22.9 billion last year.

I

. .

I

I . .

I

I 1 . !

. .

The paradox of modern agriculture is that the more productive US. f m e r s become and they are by far the most .efficient in thel world - the more attached they become to the federal umbilical'cord.

I I

, . . . . .

.. . . --.- . . .: . I.

.. I

In the e&ly'l99Os, only about 18 cents of e+eiy dollar' fanners earned came from governmen.t payments. ' . 5 ' . . I

Over the past 'three years;, 1998-2000, agriculture price' supports accounted for 35 cents of every dollar'of f- income; Freedom. to Farm has become freedom to farm taxpayers.;

Farm state legislators on Capitol Hill recite the myth that ,$.thout federal Assistance, tens, of thousands of sturdy and reliable family farms would 'forever disappear fiom the rural: landscape. In fact,' the return to a price-control fiamework -I where fanners are guaranteed a minimum price for their .drops - would' disproportionately.benefit the largest and ._

'most profitable farms,. This only accelerates'farm consolidation'and hastens the demise and sell-off . . of small and, medium-sized family farmers.

. . I . .. . . .

. .

.. .. , ,

bl,.l*. I

- 2

'. . ' I . . . l'dl

03 According to Agriculture Department 'data, about 80 percent of farm payments went to farmers with gross sales of ' , .

p%$250,000 or more. Meanwhile,'genuinely struggling mgginal farms with incomes of less than $lO,OOO'receivel about 1 'V percent of the federal payments. Ph . .

I ,

Q4 The myth that American fanners can't survive under a free market system is contradicted by the fact that of the 3 0 or

%r so food commodities grown in the U.S. most do not receive subsidies. Almost all the federal payments go the C3 producers of just a handful of staple crops: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, and cotton, Dairy, peanut, and sugar producers

PJ

9 are also well-endowed with federal dollars.

This bill would alas, cast the "farm safety net" even wider than ever: to idclude Florida citrus and lime pwe?, Vermont sheep herders, Connecticut oystermen, Midwestern popcorn producers, Idaho potato farmers, California asparagus, avocado, onion, cranberry and wine producers. This year there's even talk of including emergency aid to Virginia horse breeders.

1

I

All that is standing in the way of this return to fann bill socialism is Mr. Lugar. His more market-based alternative would eliminate price supports, acreage set-asides and the dairy, peanut and sugar subsidies. Instead, Mr. Lugar would create a system of federal matching funds to farmers with the money going into IM-type accounts.

The money in these accounts could be used to purchase crop insurance and could be drawn down during bad crop years. This system would protect fanners fkom wild gyrations in their sales, by guaranteeing them 80 percent of their average income in any year. The Lugar approach would tug the farm system back in the direction of the h e market system and would do so at a 10-year cost of $25 billion less than the House bill. No individual fmwr would be eligible for more than $30,000 in aid in any given year.

The downside of the bill is that it would make almost all .farmers eligible for federal help, and that could create brand new constituencies for these programs.

I ,

; I

I

The optimal fann policy now for American farniers would be for the U.S. to terminate its production subsidies and call for Europe and Asia to do the same. Ln this time of global economic crisis, the U.S. should.pitch a global fkee trade policy in agriculture as the most humanitarian way to provide cheap and abundant food to every comer of the globe. But we can't in good conscience call for a global system of free market agricultwe if we don't practice what we preach here at home.

The best way to help farmers, taxpayers and consumers is to kill the House bill and start over.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

GRAPHIC: Chart, FARMlMG TAXPAYERS, By The Washington Times

. .

. .

' . 1 - . . .

t LOADDATE': December 17,2001 I

. . I

\ '

I .

. .

.,'.. . .

I

I .

I '

I '

I . . 1

.rReturn to .Full . .. -

. . I

I I LexisNexisTM.Acadernic . . , .

Copyright 2001 NGWS world Communications, ~nc . . :

.. . .. . . c- . .

I . .. :. .. .

. . I The Washington Times .

December 12,2d01, I.). Wednesday, , , ' Final Edition. . , . .

' ', SECTI0N:'PART A;: COMMENTARY; Pg. AI 9 ' I:. I

. . . LENGTH: 1020 words

HEADLINE: Freeing the digital economy eo p*. p~ BYLINE: Stephen Moore b. ,

. . . . . .

1 ,

I

I .

- : 5

.. .

. .

I

'JT With the unemployment rate now at its highest level since the mid-1 990s and Congress seemingly handcuffed in ts '' attempt to pass a fiscal stimulus package, perhaps it's time for members.of both parties to look for new ways that 0 ph Uncle Sam can help hot wire the economy for faster g r o d .

P BODY:

t'd The vote in the House last week to expand the president's authority to negotiate trade agreements that tear down '

protectionist trade barriers was one such useful prosperity enhancing policy. * I

Another critical issue for expanding growth is expected to be voted on in Congress later this week. I am referring to I

the Tauzin-DingeII telecommunications bill. You've been living in a cave for the past 18 months if you haven't heard or seen the millions of dollars in annoying radio and TV ads that AT&T has spent to defeat the passage of Tawin-Dingell or the millions that the Baby Bells have spent urging its approval. And if you're like about 98 percent of other Americans, you probably have no idea what all the hullabaloo is about. Even most members of Congress have no idea how large the stakes are in this frazzled debate.

If approved, Tauzin-Dingell has the potential over the next decade to bring high-speed broadband service to nearly. every home and business in America. Broadband service is the lightning-quick Internet network technology that is the key to pushing the digital economy to new levels of growth and productivity. It is a tcchnology that will convert every personal computer in America into a 21st century multidimensional communications machine. It will do for I t

telecommunications what your cable box and satellite technologies have done for your television.

Econoniist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution estimates that a speedy rollout of broadband could generate $500 billion per year in economic benefits. That prediction is backed up by history. Past efforts at deregulation - iiom airlines and trucking to cable and wireless telephone service to financial services - have generated huge gains in economic growth, innovation and grqter choices for consumers. Even if Mr. Crandall is off by a factor of tenfold, the gains to the American economy of enacting a deregulation bill like Tauzin-Dingell here are breathtaking.

; 1

I

So what in the world is taking so long? Today only about 1 in 12 homes are wired for broadband access. Worse yet, only about 6 percent of small'and medium-sized businesses have access today. This means about 94 percent of the mom-and-pop operations are still on the wrong side of the digital divide.

What we have here is a classic confrontation between a baniacle-encrusted regulatory regime (and its industry beneficiaries, in this case AT&T) clinging to a set of antiquated rules that are slamming the brakes on the adoption of a new-age pro-consumer technology. The last time this happened was with cellular telephones. For years and years the FCC almost single-handedly kept cellular telephones out of the hands of middle-income Arnericam Experts now

.. . .

-I '

. .

I

I believe that if it had not been for a set of absurd FCC rules, cellular telephones wouldhave: gained widespread use nearly a decade earlier than they did. Those delays may have cost the nation tens o f billions of dollars in lost convenience, output, and competitiveness. J 1'

, A nearly identical mistake is now being made in broadband service. A regulatory regime, which grew out of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, was fine for opening up the static old local .telephoge 'system to

' \ But they were never meant to apply to new technologies such as broadband.

"Whatever the benefits this act may have had in other areas," says Intel chairman Andy Grove, "it did not really I

contemplate broadband deployment. "

One of the hallmarks of our new age economy is how rapidly new inventions are disbursed to tens of millions of homes and businesses. As the table shows, in less than a decade and a half, inventions like cable TV, microwave ovens, VCRs, cell phones, CD players, personal computers, the internet were afTordable and accessible to mdte than half the population. The same will soon be true of DVD players, flat panel TVs, and palm pilots. But evidently, this

pdf virtuous dispersion path it will not be true of broadband access, which has already been in use for nearly a decade and ''% is arguably the most valuable of all new consumer and business technologies. P4 v 0 some estimates, private companies will have to invest more than $200 billion tg finish the job. But our current JPlh regulatory structure, according to technology expert George Gilder, "privatizes the risk arid socializes the benefit."

I

,

Completing the broadband buildout and expanding high-speed Internet access will require money - and lots of it. By

Under current law, telecom companies would be required to invest billions of their own money on the jnfiastructure

1 I

I I I I I I I. 1 I

but then subject themselves to government-set rates to competitors that don't put a penny at risk.

Tt is no wonder that investment in telecommunications is in a drought condition today. A few years ago investors bet the farm on the reasonable assuniption that telecom was the next great profit and growth centers of the information age U.S. economy. Now it is one of the fastest money4osing industries. There are many contributing causes to the shrinking market, but the adverse regulatory structure is at or near the top of the list.

Congress has talked a lot since September 11 about lifting the burden of taxes,that restrain growth and capital investment - as well it should. But history teaches us that senseless regulation is nothing more than a hidden and expensive tax on American consumers. It now has the opportunity to liberate the economy from the regulatory barriers

-. -

to broadband investment. And it can do so at precisely the time when it is to America's unquestionable competitive advantage to surge into the global lead in this industry. ,

. .

Tauzin-Dingell, though far fiom perfect, has the potentid to be a stimulus bill that truly stimulates growth and technological progress.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for G~owth.

GRAPHIC: Chart, DEPLOYING TECHNOLOGY, By The Washington Times

LOAD-DATE: December 12,2001

. . I C ,

. I

I '

' . . mb . .

I . I . a . ,

I . . . !

I' . .

I . .

. .

I .

. . . . . rRe?urn io Full . . .. 7

. .

. .

. , I

I I

: ' . . - . . . .

LexisNexis l'. .. . Academic .. . . .

... , . .. : I .. . ' I

Copyright 2001 News World Communications, Inc. . : ...,

I . . The Washington Times I ' . .

. . I

. November 16, %Ol ,,+Friday, Fbal Edition . . . : "L ' , . ' . . ':

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A2 1 '

I

. . . . LENGTH: 1037 words

. . . PhHEADLINE: Bush-Daschle stimulus shortfall w3

'"BYLINE: Stephen' Moore w . ..

. . . . . . .

. .

I

-. . . .

I , h PdBODY: VAl l the political signals indicate that the White House and Congress are on a collisibn course that wil produce a

0 I

I

"bipartisan Bush-Daschle" economic stimulus plan.

This is likely to be a plan that doesn't do much good for the economy at a time when the economic indicators are mixed at bestand that the economy could use a tax cut lift. That tax cut should be about twice as large as what even the Republicans p e seeking. I

P%

I

I '

I

I .

The recent encouraging news on retail sales and the recent improvement in the stock market can't hide some of the , more depressing signs of economic weakness. First,'more than 2 million jobs have been lost since-the start of the year. And second, thanks to deflationary monetary policy and tax drag, the U.S. has lost $300 billion in output this year.

Even the recent rise in the Dow-Jones has only recaptured a tiny portion of the losses absorbed over the past 20 months. The destruction of asset values is roughly $5 trillion, or almost $100,000 in lost wealth on average for every investor class household in America.

r

Investment is almost at a standstill. The venture capital industry has fallen by 70 percent this year; the IPO (initial p u b h offering) market is domant; business capital investment is at its lowest since the last recession. The source of

- the U.S. downturn is investment, not consumption. I 1

All this is to say that the need for a significant tax cut rescue plan has taken on added importance over recent weeks. .

"he White House is hoping and praying that the 10 Fedehl .Reserve Board interest rate cuts and the modest Bush tax cut enacted earlier t h i s year will revive growth. The administration may be right. But it is sensiblq to dramatically raise the odds of a I11-force recovery in 2002 with a big and bold supply side tax cut package now.

Here are the steps that are needed to make that happen:

(1) Ditch the Bush-Daschle compromise route: it's an economic dead end.

Any bipartisan stimuly bill that meets with the approval of Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt will not provide much, if any, benefit to the ailing economy.

.The Democrat's version of a recovery plan could hardly do more damage to the U.S. economy if it were designed by Osama bin Laden himsell: The Democratic plan would devote almost 3 of every 4 new dollars in stimulus to .

.additional government social and inhstructure spending. And it would fund the new spending by raising the -top

' .

. .

. I

. .. I

; .

I

I

. . 1 -

. . . . . i income tax ic the future. '' '

A' real growth-enhancing stimulus plan will nev&ztiifi the approval of left-wing Democrats like Mrl. Daschle and Mr. Gephardt. So don't go there.

I 11.1 , I

(2) Think big: double the stimulus price tag to jump start growth. The current kl& is for a stim to $100 billion, Given the size of the crisis we face at home and abroad, h s j s )p.ny - less than

plan of $75 billion

1

domestic product.

Even accounting for the tax cut already enacted, the tax cuts would amount to less than 2 percent of GDP. The Reagan tax cuts, which ended the mim-depression of 1978-82, were 4 percent to 5 percent of GDP. This is the magnitude of tax cuts Republicans in Congress should now be considering.

G3 (3) A capital gains tax cut is a necessity and it's virtually free. A prospective,capital gains cut from 20 percent to 10 03 percent would raise asset values (thus helping the stock market), stimulate investment, and help 75 million investor P.. class Americans. I

PJ Rc. 4 Best of all: The cost of this tax cut would be close to zero. In 1997 the rate reduction from 28 to 20 percent led to a 70

percent increase in capital gains tax receipts (from $62 billion to $109 billion) and the largest explosion in ventwe *r capital funding (from 1997-2000) in American history. A forward-looking capital gains tax cut (applying only to gains C3 &er September 11,2001) would lose at most $25 billion. The economy gets $10 of gro* for every $1 revenue cost. phi This is the very definition of a stimulus. The price tag is less than the illdesigned corporate tax rebate in the House '' bill.

(4) Government spending won't generate economic growth or jobs: Just ask Japan. Among aI1 industrialized nations,

1

1 I

I 1. I. I' I I I. I

Japan has by far the largest increase in public sector spending over the past decade. The entire island has been cemented over with public works projects. Japan is now building bridges and tunnels as it begins to pave over the ocean with concrete. The demand-side formula has only deepened the depression. The Nikeii index, which stood at near 40,000 in 1990 is now, 1 1 years later, below 15,000.

Japan now has its highest unemployment since World War 11. This is hardly aneconomic recovery model for the U.S. to emqqte. Don't go there, either.

I

(5 ) Temporary tax cuts are nearly worthless. Temporary tax cuts shift the timing of economic activity, but not the overall level of economic activity. Some 70 percent of the House tax bill expires after 2002 and 90 percent expires . d e r 2003. This will surely accelerate economic activity now (taxes impact behavior, after all), but will depress economic activity the moment the stimulus wears off. Temporary business investment tax breaks, temporary sales tax holidays, and temporary tax rate cuts could unwittingly prolong the recession, rather than end it. If the tax cut is worth doing, it is worth doing permanently.

Now is not the time for pinching pennies. A tax cut of $200 billion to $300 billion a year is affordable and necessary to get America back to work. The two top priorities for Congress should be to accelerate the top income tax rates in the Bush plan and to cut the capital gains tax in half.

Without a Republican victory on at feast one of these two priorities, the stimulus bill will have almost no noticeable effect on growth. A stimulus bill that mostly expands government spending will actually depress the economy and is '

worse than no stimulus plan at all. Democrats, who are looking to take back Congress in 2002 may be content to settle for that outcome. Republicans have everyhng to lose - including their jobs - if they settle on a stimulus bill that won't stimulate. 11

Stephen Moore is president of the Club €or Growth.

GRAPHIC: Cartoon, UNEMPLOYMENT LINE, By Ramirez/The Los h g e l e s Times (Copley News Service, 01)

I

I

I

. .

. . .

I

. .

. I

. .. I

. :

.. LOAD-DATE: November. 16,200 1 I I , " I

I-. . . . ' !'

. .

' I

.. . I

: I I S .. .

.. . . .

. . . . .

. .

I

I . . ' , ,

. . ' . I I.). , , ' ': . . . .

:i ' . . . .

. .

I

. . . . . .

. . . . _ I .

. . . . . . 1

. I

... . . ,

I .

? . . . . .

. . I . .

I

IN I

I

I

. .

. I

. . .

- . .

. . 1,

I

. . .

' . . . . .

. LexishjexisTM Academic I .

. .

, . Copyright 2001~.New~ .World Communications,, Inc. ,The Washington Time's , '

, ' I , \ '. . .

. November 09,2001, Friday, Final Edjtion . .

' SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1 8' . . .

LENGTH: 1071 words . .

C3 HEADLINE: Dancing to a new. fiscal fandango*- . . I

hl . I

fq BYLINE: Stephen Moore / Jeff Bell, P I . -1 BODY: . .

I

I

. " 8

. .

: ' 1

.. .

'5lI Democratic victories in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections on Tuesday are, predictably, being '' characterized as proof that the era of big government is back Political pundits are also suggesting that the tax-cutting '' message of the GOP, which was paydirt for Republicans in the 1990s, is no longer appealing to the median 2 1 st fb,] century voter. Only people who paid zero attention to what was said in these two races codd make that claim. h

Surely the defeats of Bret Schundler in New Jersey and Mark Earley of Virginia 'are blows to conservatives. Both ran as strong anti-tax candidates.

Both attacked the victorious Democrats (Mark !A7mer in Virginia and Jim McGreevey in New Jersey) for their secret plans to raise taxes. And both lost. But not because New Jersey and Virginia voters opted for a return to Democratic tax and spend policies.

Just the opposite. One of the most remarkable features of these two races was that Mr. Warner and Mr. McGreevey both veered as far to the right on fiscal issues as Democrats are permitted to without entirely alienating the left-wing base of their party. They T~UI successful campaigns as Bill Clinton new Democrat fiscal'conservatives eschewing the era of big government. They both pledged in their debates that they would not raise taxes to balance thk state budget.

I

In fact, as any Northern Virginian knows 1 1 1 well, Mr. Warner spent millions of dollars on omnipresent 'II! ads to tell ., voters exactly ,that. Mr. Wamer described himself as'a pro-George W. Bush "fiscal conservative" and touted his ."plan 'for action," indicating how budget deficits could be avoided without 'raising'taxes. He pledged allegiance to the car tax elimination, which had been a polar star for Republican Jim Gilmore back in 1997. Mr. Warner sounded, in short, like a 1990s tax-aphobic Republican.

Mr. McGreevey's 1 lth-hour conversion to the no new taxes camp was even more dramatic. At the start of the campaign, Mr. McGreevey refbsed to pledge not to raise taxes, trotting out the traditional Democratic mantra that such a promise would be fiscally irresponsible. But as Mr. Schundler showed signs of resurrecting his dormant campaign and gaining ground on Mr. McGreevey, the Deniocrat's message became intensely anti-tax.

h the last debate, Mr. McGreevey was again asked if he would raise taxes. Point blank, he responded that there was no need to raise taxes and that through streamlining government and agency consolidation, expenditure cutbacks could keep the budget out of red ink. Mr. McGreevey even criticized the New Jersey Republicans (with much accuracy) for fiscal mismanagement and overspending and excessive reliance on debt during the Christie Whitman years.

'

1

,

At the Cat0 Institute, one of us (Stephen Moore) had been attacking Mrs. Whitman and the New Jersey legislature for .

I

I

I

I

I

I I 1 . :

. . m., .

. .

I.

I

. . . .

. . . .

'. 3 . .

I . I

exactly this fiscal profligacy.

' ' What wasmost excruciating .for New Jersey liberals was when ,Mr. McGreevey was asked about his vote-h 199j for.: the giant Jim Florio *tax increase. For years, this vote was a badge of honor for leftists, who still'maintain. thatMr. Florio did thejght thing. New Jersey voters sure don't.. So Mr. McGreevey pulled a stunning mea culpa, saying that if he knew their what he knows now, "No, I clearly wouldn't, have:voted for that tax hike." You could just see James Carville:.the political architect of that soak the rich tax increasd, cringing in embarrassment; '

Now, we've both been around politics Iong enough to be &$ply skeptical bf the Waher and McGreevey oaths'not to raise taxes. Our hope is that Mr. Warner keeps his promises'and turns out to beanother Doug Wi1dez;the Old .I)ominion's most fiscally tight-fisted governor in 20 years, hespite being a Democrat. But fiscally stressful. times are ahead for the states, and new taxes are going to be mighty tempting option 'for these Democrats..,

'

.

Nu*,. I 1 .

~4 But in both states, any such tax flip-flop will prove mighty costly politically. Our advice to Mr. McGreevey and Mr.

Pb P4 w".. ,,+, in a call to former New Jersey Gov. James Florio. Twelve years ago, Mr. Florio won' a kcord Democratic landslide

Warner: Don't go there.

If Mr. Warner or Mr. McClreevey doubt the political penalty they might face for flip-flopping on taxes, they might put

v against Republican Congressman Jim Courter by, among other things, ruling out an increase in state taxes. By J 1990, Mr. Florio's first month in ofice, he had "discovered" a fiscal shortfall that necessitated one of the

E3 most punishing tax increases in the history of New Jersey or any other state. And, of tour=, the rest is history: Christine Todd Whitman road the income tax cutting agenda to a stunning victory, presaging the landslide for Republicans in 1994.

tv I '

One other factor'played a big role in both these Republican defeats: party disunity. In New Jersey, Bret Schundler is still waiting for an endorsement from Gov. Donald DiFrancesco, the liberal acting Republican govmor who was forced out of this race in the spring because of financial scandals. I

I

Christie Whitman's endorsement was tepid at best. She played into Mr. McGreevey's hand by remarking that Mr. Schundler had some positions "outside the mainstrem" of New Jersey.

To all too many liberal Republicans, pkticularly in the Northeast, the "big tent" of party unity is a concept apparently meant to be binding on conservative primary losers, but not on liberal primary losers like Mr. DiFrancesco.

r

"here's no sugar coating it: Nov. 7 was a bad day for Republicans. Democrats are sure to take a page out of the McGreevey and Warner playbooks and carbon copy campaigns as they attempt to take the House in the critical 2002 midterm elections. This is all the more reason that congressional Republicans cement themselves to a strong pro-tax cut position so that Democrats can't move to the right of them on fiscal issues this year and next.

The New Jersey and Virginia elections were a vindication, not a repudiation of the power of fiscd conservative values in America. When Democrats have to run as anti-tax advocates of fiscal restraint to win ofice, arid when they have to distance themselves fiom the party's tax and spend liberal roots, the battle for pro-growth economic policies is being won.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Jeff Bell, a fonner Senate candidate in New Jersey, is a political analyst for the Club.

. .

GRAPHIC: Cartoon, CROANNG A NEW FISCAL TUNE, By'RichTopeIThe Washington T h e . .

LOAD-DATE: November 9,2001

. .

. I

. .

L

. .

I

. .

I

I ' . : .

.(L l.'.

' I

. . , . . . . 4Retwn to Full '

Lex W e x i sTM Acad e rnic I .

. Copyright 200 1,News World Communications,l Inc. . \ : The Washington Tim& ,

September 28,2001, Friday, Final Edition . . , , ' , \ ' .

. . '

. SECT!ON: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A23

LENGTH: 1125 words

. . .

. .

0i.d HEADLINE:' How to reverse the stockmarket Slide GO ' . . .

BYLINE:StephenMoore , . . .Pd

I

. . h. p.I BODY: . I '

. .

. I

. .

; I 0 . '

' I : I .

. .

. .. .

This week millions of patriotic citizens bought stock to invest in America and help prevent a financial market V collapse. c3 'h Their efforts were only partially successful. Foreigners and big investment houses were selling. The Dow-Jones at one '' point in the week was down a catastrophic 1,000 points, while the Nasdaq has been flirting with the 1,500 mark - a

I

I

I I

I

I t I I I I I I

two-thirds decline from its 5,000-point high mark back in early 2000. These are massive losses in Americans' wealth. The net worth of American citizens dropped .. . by $1 trillion in the days since 'Wall Street reopened the stock market.

The murderous terrorists have not just destroyed life andpoperty; they have caused a world of hurt to.our financial stability and our fiee enterprise economy. That was their evil intention, of course. . .

unleashed their wicked acts of death and destruction so they would also profit fiom the ensuing market decline. It was no accident that the temnsts chose the World Trade Center towers as their targets. These beautill structures were the very symbols of America' s financial and economic might.

We are not just fighting a military war, but an economic war 8s well. Ow enemies mean to destroy OUT prosperity and drag down our high standard of living. Our politicians must understand that we must now respond not just by restoring our military supremacy, but our economic superiority as well.

I

There is even some evidence that Bin Laden and his co-conspirators shorted the U.S. market in the weeks before they

Resident Bush and Congress are working on an economic rescue plan, but the White House may allow ultraliberal Democrats Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri to dictate the terms of that package in the spirit of ''bipartisanship." If that turns out to be the case, the plan will almost certainly be severely flawed and insufficient to avert the economic crisis we now find ourselves in.

Mr. Daschle and M i Gephardt want tax cut gimmicks that would be only temporary in nature and would thus have a minimal revitalizing effect on the economy.

In any case, with 80 percent public approval, President Bush must go around the liberal Democratic leadership and present his own plan, and then dare the far-left flank of the Democratic Party to thwart his agenda.

The first goal of any economic package must be to restore confidence in the stock market. Congress and Mr. Bush must come to the urgent aid of the Main Street American investors who have risked their savings and retirement nest eggs in a shaky market. And they should act quickly. It took just 48 hours for Congress to pass a military emergency

I

I

. .

I

0

I

I

. ' '.-..

I . . . I'

. ' I ' . .

aid package. It shouldn't take more than'tliat Time to pass an emergenci'financial rescue.plan. ': ,

. _

! . .

I

' ' k7e knowfioni history precisely how to pump adrenaline into the market and get prices up. A capital gains tax cut. In: fact, if Congress would irnniediately reduce the capital gains tcw rate from 20 percent to 10 percent, we could' reasonably anticipate that the stock market would regain all of the ground that it lost this week - and then some. The stock market virtually always rises after capital gains taxes havd been cut, as seen in the graph displayed below. When the capital gains tax is lowered,'the value of every company in h e r i c a rises. This meansthat the stock must rise in value too. I

Many Democrats fiercely oppose any reduction to the capid gains tax-as if it is a violation of their core religious beliefs. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York reportedly threwa tirade when House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republjcan, suggested that the capital gains tax penalty be sliced in half. Mr. Rangel believes that only the rich would benefit from such a policy. But no one has ever explained to me how a falling stock market helps any American.

WFalling stock values hurt OUT soldiers, our seniors, our union workers, our minimum wage eamers. And boosting the %tack market will help the 80 million to 100 million Americans who today own shares of American companies. h PCB ,Next, President Bush should propose some tax relief for the ailing manufacturing sector that has lost more than 1 ,qrnillion jobs over the past 18 months. The bkst plan here would be to allow companies to immediately expense the

1 W-l l

#I' 4 ,

I'

I

V capital purchases - for plant, equipment, computers, R&D,'etc., in the year that theylincurred the expense. v I . . . . . 1' . ! . :

Finally, all the tax cuts? in the original Bush tax plan passed back in the spring should be implemented immediatel;, .

not over 10 years. I would adopt an effective date of Sept. 1 1,2001. This would immediately lower tax rates to 35 percent and ihmediately end the death tax.

Ph 1%

I '

I

There really is no time to waste in getting these tax and regulatory reforms enacted. The U.S. economy was already teetering on the verge of recession before these planes struck their targets. vow a recession is almokt a certainty-the only issue is: how long, how painful, how much wealth and income, and how many jobs will Americans lose over the next several months? It could-get very ugly fast.

President Bush must take a page-out of Ronald Reagan's economic playbook. A recurrink lesson of American history is that we have won every major war because we had an industrial might that simply overwhelmed our opposition. Most recently, rapid economic growth was instrumental in winning the Cold War against the last great evil of the planet: totalitarianism. Ronald Reagan proved brilliantly in the 1980s that we can, if we simply get our economic . policies aligned correctly, afford to pay for guns and butter, whereas'our enemies with their inferior economic systems must choose between the two.

Mr. Reagan's adversaries here in the U.S. thought the idea of cutting taxes and fighting a war at the same tiine made little sense. But it was precisely the economic growth, inspired at least in part by the tax cuts, that convinced the Soviets they could never win an anns race with us.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was right on the mark when he announced last week that we 'are now to fight the first 21 st century war. This requires adopting a set of wartime economic measures that will push the pedal to the metal of our new age high-tech industrial structure. The measures will be designed to hyper-accelerate our rate of economic production to the 5 percent to 6 percent range.

Restoring prosperity to our economy - quickly -,would'be one of the sweetest forms of revenge against those who hate us. Busb now clearly has the capacity to ram through Congress an aggressive policy of growth. The'plan he comes up with may very well ultimately define the degree of success OT failure of his presidency. .

.Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth..

LOAD-DATE: September 28,2001 .

. .

. .

. I

. . . . I

I

. .

. . . .

. . .

. . .

. I

I

. .

'. . . . . . . I

* *... ' I

: I +Return t o Full ... , _ . ..

1.'

: I +Return t o Full ... , _ . ..

LexisNexisTM Academic . . . . l ~ i ~ ~ . : I J 4' . .

I %

. ' Copyright 204J,,News World Communications, lnc.

'The Washington Times . j . . ' , \ . ..

* . : August 26,2001, Sunday, Final Edition , .

I .

SECTION: PART B; COMMENTARY; Pg. B3

LENGTH: 975 words , .

. . .

. .

HEADLINE: Savvy on Social, Security I . . I

. . . I

. . BYLINE: Steph.en Moore ' ,

BODY: . . .

. .

. . .

I'

. . ' I I . . '

The President's Commission to Save and Strengthen Social Securiv reconvened to examine reform options. The commission has documented in its first report that doing nothing is about as sensible an option as allowing the Titanic to move full steam ahead to the iceberg.

I I

Lefbwing fringe groups want to do just that. They have staged protests claiming that the commission's true agenda is to "destroy Social Security,'' as House Minority Richard A. Gephardt and so many others have alleged. But the hysteria is a proof positive sign that opponents of personal accounts are getting desperate and are losing the hearts and minds of American workers, who want to get more for their money.

Privatization is regarded by liberal Democrats as a frontal assault against the nanny state cradle-to-grave fortress that was first erected by Franklin D. Roosevelt some 60 years ago. They are actually quite right about that. Privatize Social ' Security and the rest of the New Deal/Great Society welfdfe state will come a tumblin' down.

So thq Stakes are high. The commission had better get the plan right - both fiom a financial and political standpoint - so that they don't give Mr. Gephardt and his cronies a big red round bull's-eye to shoot at.

The first thing they ought to do is call on Rep. J& DeMint, South Carolina Republican, who has drafted a savvy and sensible private investment plan. Mr. DeMint's brainchild promises to get us to a fully private retirement system within a generation, faster and with less political resistance than any plan I have seen.

Mr. DeMint recognizes that tacticaily, it makes sense to pre-empt the strongest argument that the left has against private investment accounts. Opponents really only have one semi-persuasive argument: that private investment in the stock market is ''too risky." In this lousy stock market, that argument has an aroma of truth to it. Most Americans lost money in their 401K plans last year for the first time in anyone's memory. The bearish market reinforces the message that stocks are too risky to gamble your retirement dollars on. (Let's set aside the fact that now may actually be the ideal time for workers to begin investing their payroll tax dollars, when the market is down, dam, down: Buy low, sell high is the first rule of investing.)

1

! The brilliance afthe DeMint plan is that it guarantees a benefit no lower than Social Security would. offer and thus removes virtually all of the "riski' from private investment accounts. His legislation, called the Social Security . .

Personal Ownership Plana,,is modeled after the ThriA Savings Account Plan that is now offkred to federal workers, including, by the way, members of Congress. It has the added attraction that it is completely voluntary for workers. Those who don't want to control their own accounts may stick with Social Security.

D

. I' . . . I

The. DeMint plan is also geared toward'helping the lowest wage'.workers the most;. He woulddlow factory and .

, .'service workerrs, for example, to immediately invest as much as 8 percentage points of the 15.3 percent:payroll tax into ' 'pri,v'ate investment accounts. Higher wage. workers would start !with a 3 percentage point 'diversion-of the-payroll tax .:

into private accounts. :. President .. Bush's proposal. only allows low-wage workers to divert, 2. percent of the.lr paychecks . to IRA accoyts. This means that lower income workers would be able'to,acquire 'real wealth much faster .than under the Bush plan. This progressive feature of the proposal also solves the practical problem with some plans.that lower . .

wage workers might not be able to put enough money into theii personal accounts (if the cap , . were 2 percent) to cover the administrative costs of private accounts.

The DeMint'plan also .overcomes the "transitional financin?' problem that has liberal critics o f privatization all hot ' .

and bothered. The DeMint plan would.pay for current benefits out of payroll tax'revenues plus borrowing from the . ,

on-budget surplus that is projected over the next dozen years or so: In fact,'Mr. DeMint has:run.the nube r s with ths. ' '

help of Social Security actuaries, and what he has found is that whereas the "do nothing" option would require an.. %7 unfathomable $22 trillion of new debt over the next 75 years, the DeMint plan lowers that accumulated deficit by c9r, two-thirds because of the higher rate of return private investment offers. Any Arnerican .20 years of age'or younger, h could rely exclusively on the earnings from' the personal.accounts, and wouldn't need a"dime .of Social Security. I'J

-4' $r

GI near-elderly; '

,b$

hl(2) The plan should be voluntary. No one should be forced to join.

1

I ' , . C'!" I I .

' #I' ' . ' . . I.). , , ' . .

i k I have always believed that the three key components of Social Security private accounts . . are:,... ., .

I .

I I

(1) No benefit cuts' for, seniors or near seniors. Social Secuiity's promises need to'be' kept for the elderly and .

. ! I

. .

. .

. . I '

(3) Every worket should be guaranteed a minimum benefit payment when they retire, regardless of how poorly their accounts might do.

To my delighted surprise, I leamed last week in a meeting with Mr. DeMint that these are precisely his priorities as well. "Access to real personal financial wealth should not be reserved for the privileged few," Mr. DeMint says.

Mr. Bush and the members of his commission should adopt this model plan as their own. No other plan to my knowledge allows even the lowest income workers to build-up red castles of wealth more quickly and efficiently than the DeMint plan.

I

I

- r

. . . .

The plan is bullet proof.

"Reforming Social Security is our generation's D-Day," Mr. DeMint says. "To leave future generations with the multitrillion-dollar debt of pay-as-you-go Social Security is the, coward's way out."

He's right, .of course. The question is whether there are more patriots than cowards .on Capitol Hill these days.'

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

. . LOAD-DATE: August 26,2001 ,

I

I

4 Return to .Full .. . . . '

, ' LexisNexisTM Academic 1 .

. . .

, . . Copyright 20OF News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times, ' \

: , ' I \ " . .' August'02,20Ol2 Thursday, I . Final Edition

SECTION: PARTA; COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 . -

LENGTH:, 991 words

HEADLINE: Rebates every summer?, . .

. . . . . .

. . .,.a,

I

, I

BYLENE:StephenMoore, , .

BODY= . . .

I

I -

I

. .

. . .

I

, ' @ , .

1 . '

. , I I . . . .

Republicans have struck political pay dirt with the tax rebate checks that are now being delivered to the mailboxes of American taxpayers.

For weeks now tax cut skeptics have been ridiculing these tax rebates as financially irrelevant to most families, but h e yet to meet anyone who isn't eagerly awaiting their $300 to $600 check from the IRS. At parties, on talk radio, and in casual telephone conversations, all anyone wants to talk about is how they're going to spend their windfall. CNN's Web site chat room is filled with wild and innovative ideas for blowing $300 for anyone who is interested.

Economists are busily debating what the financial impact of these checks will be. But it's really irrelevant what people do with the money - whether they use it to pay down credit card debt or to buy a new car stereo system - it's their money, they should do with it what they please. The point is that these checks are a deserved and appreciated down payment on the Bush tax cut.

The pdpularity of these rebate checks got me to thinking. Why not send out an automatic tax rebate check every year that Uncle Sam runs a tax surplus? The size of the rebate check could be made-conditional on how mych of the surplus was not fiittered away by congressional appropriators and their voracious spending appetites each year.

In other words, the promise of tax rebate checks could be the ultimate check and balance against the stampede of federal expenditures.

I

I

At the start of each fiscal year, Congress should detennine the size of the expected nonSocial Security tax surplus. Congress should then announce how largethe expected surphs tax rebate would be for the typical taxpaying family. Under this new law, discretionary federal spending should be permitted to grow no faster than the rate of inflation (CPI growth) each year. If economic growth came in faster than expected, federal revenues would be higher and the rebate checks would be more generous. If Congress raced through its own appropriations speed bumps, the surplus checks would be correspondingly smaller.

My suspicion is that the prototypical soccer mom, who may not care a whit about politics, would be hopping mad that the rebate check she was counting on from the IRS to help pay the plumber's bill or for summer camp tuition, won't be coming this year because it was intercepted by the profligate spenders in Congress who found other uses for the money. 1

Herein lies the ingeniousness of the automatic annual rebate plan.

I

I

I

. .

I

I

, . " . . .

_, . . I

'

For the first time in decades, fiscal cohservatives would actually have a tool to gin up politid support for trimming

government's budget under a microscope and to FFpkl'*spending for grants to the Pillsbury Dough Boy, obscene art

f I

i 1 : frivolous spending whenever and wherever possible. Voters would be given a financial incentive to keep the

exhibits, or the Bud Shuster moving sidewalk in Pennsylvania. Every dollar saved would be an additional dollar to be I passed back to income taxpayers in the form of a .bigger rebate check. Election year pork-barreling would lose its "free lunch" appeal because the marble-plated parking garages and the snow pea reskarch funds into less i

I

I

: ' I I

I i

dollars available for a big rebate check every July.

Under this plan voters would think anew about supporting absurd new entitlement

' \. plan for prescription drug benefits for seniors. Young voters who want the rebate check to help payoff their studefit 0

loans would be butting heads with seniors who want yet another multi-billion-dollar taxpayer hand-out for free Viagra pills. If voters were aware that Congress' prescription drug benefit plan for seniors, with its gargantuan $300 billion price tag, might mean some $100 a year off their tax rebate check, worker enthusiasm for this new fieebie entitlement

i

j I i

I i I

I

I I - 1 P h might start to wane. m P k ?W

PI can't because it would mean that Texans would only get half the rebate check they're expecting in '02." v Yl' As the attached chart shows, federal appropriations have riscn more than 25 percent over the past four years. My

Pc. I

tu"$

Congressional budget hawks like Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, would have a field day with this new automatic tax rebate plan. Mr. Gramm could announce, "Gee, I'd like to support this $50 billion plan to replenish the IMF, but I

* forecast for this year is a 7 percent to 9 percent growth in appropriations leading to our fir$ $2 trillion annual budget.

This comes on the heels of last year's 10 percent spending rampage.

i Economist Larry Kudlow calls this phenomenon the "curse of the budget surplus" - because there's no longer a rationale to spend tax dollars frugally. But the Automatic Taw Rebate plan twns a curse into a taxpayer blessing.

f these days. 1

! i !

i

! 1

Surpluses mean bonus tax rebate checks in the mail. What's obvious &om recent spending trends on Capitol Hill is that any plan that can create a political constituency for smaller government, would make a lot of economic sense

The Automatic Tax Rebate plan would also heighten the political appeal of slashing tax rates and ultimately refom& I the fedqral1RS tax code. I 1

[

i The experience of states like Colorado that have similar automatic rebate pIms is that state legislators Will cut taxes if they realize they can't spend surplus dollars on ribbon cutting ceremonies back home. Where's the joy in collecting tax dollars in the first place if you're effectively prohibited from spending them?

Finally, there is economic justice imbedded in this plan. Tax surpluses belong to the people, not the politicians. I

1 f

1 i f

I

I t i: I believe it was H.L. Mencken who once called the federal spending process an advanced auction on stolen money.

Under this rebate plan voters would be reminded that the federal dollars that Congress lavishes on US with such generosity is simply money stolen from us in the first place.

i.

I Stephen' Moore is presid,ent . . of the ,Club for Growth. I

I

I GRAPHIC: Cartoon, "HONEY, OUR TAX REBATE ARRIVED!. . .I'LL BFUNG IT IN JUST AS SOON AS I I

' I WRESTLE IT AWAY FROM TOM DASCHLE!", By H. PayneDetroit News, -2001

I LOAD-JDATE : August 2,2001

+R.etum to Full . .. - , I

I LexisNexisTM, Academic

Copyright 2001 News World'Comrnunications, Inc. The Washington T h e s

r.. .. . ..

I I .. . ' .

July 3 1,20O~'Tug;sday, Final,Edition ,.i',,'

I ,

SECTI0N:'PART A;'COMMENTARY; Pg. A14

LENGTH: 944 words

os HEADLINE: Why the deathlax just refuses to die #!I h BYLINE: Stephen Moore and Greg Kaza f-4

. ,

I .

ury BODY: qi There was no more frustrating'feature of George W. Bush's tax cut enacted last month than what happened with e ' rr death tax. Those who fought to get rid of this unfair extraction are hopping mad - and they should be. The new la s 0 phases out the death tax fiom its current 55 percent rate d o h to 45 percent in 2009, then repeals the entire tax in b*a 201 0, then reinstates this onerous trw at 55 percent in 201 1. IN . I

1

. .

I '

. I

C

I

This is a tax that penalizes people for saving; has compliance costs that are about has high as the dollar amount collected; and does so much damage to the economy that itmay actually lose overall revenues for the government. Americans generally know all o f this.

I

I

That's why roughly 2 of every 3 Americans wants this tax abolished pronto eventhough very few directly themselves.

pay this tax - r

The left-wing supporters of the death tax understand full well that they and their redistributiomst cause have survived to fight another day.

One of the leading pro-death tax groups, called "Responsible Wealth," declares gleefully on its web site: "The Battle Isn't Over Yet." . .

Unfortunately, they are right. The Republicans have seized defeat out of the jaws of victory.'This is a mGor disappointment for &payer advocates, because the pro-death tax forces had been circled and were defenseless with no mearis to avoid the slaughter. The votes were there in'congress to kill the tax immediately and forever, if the Republicans in the House and Senate and President Bush would have simply pressed their case q d carried on the fight, rather than agreeing to a hollow victory.

Over the whole history of the United States, the estate tax has been a Dracula tax - it simply will not stay dead. The first U.S. death tax was enacted in 1797 to provide funding for the military but was soon abolished. ,

Other death taxes, enacted during the Civil and Spanish-American wars, were also quickly repealed - but always 'subsequently resurrected.

.

;Our modern day death tax was enacted in 1936. Proponents, including the pro-tax group, Responsible Wealth, contend . that entrepreneurs a cenhuy ago were responsible for its enactment. "Then as now," the group claims, "wealthy people took the lead in arguing for estate taxes." Responsible W d t h tit-es industrialist Andrew Carnegie's book, "Wealth," which opposes the creation of vast estates. This interpretation of the tax's origin overlooks the key role of another

I

. I

. ..

r

. .

, . .

. . I

1 - I group: the socialist movement.

In fact, the continued existence of the death tax inb& current federal tax code is one of the most visible sign of the influence of the socialist movement on the U.S. policy scene. Karl Marx was also a huge proponent of the wealth tax approach to private property confiscation and in fact, *e wealth or estate tax was one of the leading policy

The writer Edward Bellamy was another leading socialist in his day. In his bool!!, "Looking Back ard," Bellamy describes a future utopia, where there is "no private propertyio speak of, no disputes between citi ns over business relations, no real estate to divide or debts to collect." Nor is there inherited wealth. Bellamy writes, "When w e made, the nation the sole trustee of the wealth of the people, and guaranteed to all abundant maintenance, on the one hand abolishing want, and on the other checking the accumulation of riches, we cut this root, and the poison tree that overshadowed your society withered, like Jonah's gourd, in a day." This book about a utopian socidism is actually

I

I I

B recommend at ions contained in the "Communist Mmi fcst 0. I' \,

m.cited by Responsible Wealth as presenting a persuasive case for the death tax. rn ha The first reference to the death tax in a U.S. political platform,occurred in 1892; the Socialist Labor party demanded a 2 ''progressive income tax and tax on inheritances; the smaller incomes to be exempt." The party repeated its demand in Ird 1896. By 1904, the Socialist Party platform pledged to "work in both the economic and the political struggle" for the

"graduated taxation of incomes, inheritances, fianchises and land values." cr

Milton and Rose Friedman observed, "ln our opinion, the Socialist Party was the most influential party in the United h States in the first decades of the 20th century." The Socialists held the balance-of-power in' nearly 225congressional

elections, including 120 lost by Democrats, and had 1,000-plus officeholders at their peak. In 1912, Democrat Wilson lost 22 electoral votes in states where Socialist Eugene V. Debs held the balance-.of-power. Wilson's signing of the death tax prior to the 1916 election was a pragmatic attempt to co-opt the Socialist vote by taking over a key component of the socialist agenda.

The death tax was originally set at below 10 percent, but it quickly climbed to well more than 50 percent - a confiscatory rate that somehow remains in place today. It remains in place despite the fact that 92 percent of Americans who are rich today earned their wealth, they did not inherit it.

Reps. Qick h e y , Texas Republican, and Pat Toorney, Pennsylvania Republican,have introduced legislation to make the deadi tax repeal in 2010 pennanent. But for now, the death tax is still robbing our graves and this perpetual fight between free-market capitalists and left-leaning income redistributors rages on.

, I

I

One thing is for sure, until this tax is entirely extinguished with a stake driven firmly through its heart, the iegacy of the socialist movement in America, will continue to be a central feature of the American . . . tax system. . .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Greg Kaza is executive director of the Arkansas Policy . .

. . " Foundation.

GRAPHIC: Cartoon, YOU CANT TAKE IT WITH YOU. , ., By Gorrell/Richmond Times-Dispatch (Creators Syndicate, Inc. 200 1)

1

LOAD-DATE: July 3 1,200 1

i

I

I

. .

. , .

I

. !

,

. .

I-

. .

. . ,

I .(Return t o Full . . _

Lex.lislNexisTM .Academic . , . ..

. Copyright 2001'-News World Coinmunicatio si Inc. : The Washington Times I t -

. . . _ ; . \ .

.' June 13,2001, Wednesday;Final Editi.0;

' SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1 6 . . . .

. .

LENGTH: 1066words . . ':

i 63 HEADLINE : kiceless issons. ofthe tax cut vfetov

I .f-+d

"

, . : BYLINE:StepbenMoore . . - .

i .

. .

. . . . .

. .

. . . .

. . . 1 '

. I ' I . .

. .

'F;T Since about 90 percent of the laws passed in Washington harm the economy, rather than help it, it's worth celebrating I T those rare occasions when Congress actually does something that is good for America's long term prosperity. President Bush's tax bill is one of these rare policy achievements.

1 No one has complained of the defects of the tax bill (too back-end loaded to help the emnomy anytime soon, too small

I

Eh

given the giant tax surpluses we now have, d d too much of a concession to the class wtufare rhetoric of the left) than I have, but this should not blind US to the genuine accomplishment that has been delivered by George W. Bush and the GOP's congressional leadership.

Why have I laid aside my past reservations to trumpet the Bush t&w. bill? Here are 10 reasons why conservatives should celebrate this bill's passage:

(1) When it comes to tax cuts: size does matter. One of the strongest argument's for the Bush tax cut is that it will take $1.35 &lion over the next 10 years out of Washington. This tax cut is the best conceivable repellent to new spending. .- This is precisely why the Democrats fought so tenaciously to prevent a tax cut of this magnitude fiom ,ever being enacted. Workers, businesses, and parents can spend $1.3 5 trillion much more efficiently than Congress can.

(2) A return' to the supply side. As Lany Kudlow argued in NR Online earlier this week, the tax bill provides some modest, but not inconsequential, increases in supply side incentives to save, invest and take risks. Mr. Bush wanted to slash the top tax rate to 33%. Instead he settled for 35 percent. But hear this: The elimination of the phase ouf of exemptions and credits brings the effective top income tax rate down by at least one more percentage point:We didn't repeal the whole Clinton tax increase of '93, but this is a very nice start.

(3) Vindication for the politics of tax cuts. Moore's law of politics is that no one in the histoq'of American politics ever lost an election by voting for tax cuts. After months of the, media assuring us Americans don't really feel that tax .cuts are a "high priority," every vulnerable Democrat in the Senate voted "aye" on the final passage of the Bush tax cut. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, voted for tax cuts. So did Jean Camahan of Missouri, who never had a nice word to say about tiax cuts in her life. So did Sens. Max Cleland of Georgia, Max Baucus of Montana, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. They must know something about the politics of tax cutsthat the folks at CBS and the New ,

York Times cannot seem to fathom.

,

a

(4) The left is fuming. It finally dawned on me: If this bill is so watered down, why is it that people like Tom Daschle, ,

Dick Gephardt, Paul'Krugman, and the entire staffs of The Washington Post editorial page and the Center for Tax Justice have been whining continuously about how horrible this "ill-advised" tax cut is going to be for the nation? Paul

*. I

. .

. I

Krugman moaned on NPR recently that this tax bill's price tag is really closer to .$2 trillion. ' . .

Let's hope 'he's right.

(5 ) The GOP has finally put the 1990 "read my lips'' debacle'behind it. Taxpayers can trust. Republicansigain. Tax ' ,

cuts were the crown jewel of the Bush domestic policy platfoh. The White House absolutely had to'have this win and they got it - notwithstanding several near-death experiences in the Senate. Bravo to Karl- Rove, Paul Oweill, Lany Lindsey and the whole White House lobbying team &at spared this victory for the president . . . and the.country. The ghosts of Dick D m a n have been put to rest.

I I .. . .

. . . . , . . . , .. c . . . .

.. . . , .. .. .

.

1, i'l , , ' . .

. .

(6) McCain is now certifiably McCrazy. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, showed his true colors. He actually voted against find passage of the Bush tax plan. He was one of only two Republicans in a l l of Congress to do so. W h y this act of Jeffordsonian betrayal? Because he proclaimed that the bill favored the rich too much at the expense of lower-income Americans. He co-sponsored a poison pill amendment with Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, to I 0 gut the Bush tax plan. Mr. McCain's evil plot was foiled thankfully by one vote. Prediction: John McCain ?ll never again seriously contend for the Republican nomination for president.

I l-4 I .

(7) Tax-cutting success generates its own momentum. Why not another tax bill next month to cut the capital-gai s tax? To give business well-ddserved tax breaks? To phase in the tax cuts even faster? To repeal the death tax so ei? The conservatives in the House, including people like Dick h e y , Texas Republican, and Pat Toomey, Penmy1 + ania

Ps F 4

1 0 Republican, are already working on it. P55.

n6 (8) Class wzlrfare rhetoric fell flat. The left's chief rallying cry against the tax bill for these last three months was "tax I I I I I I I I I I I

cuts for the rich.'' It didn't play in Peoria. Here's an example: In a recent McLaughIin and Associates survey, 60 percent of voters said they favored eliminating the death tax even for "billionaires." The lesson: the growth argument of the right once again trumped the envy argument of the left. John F. Kennedy was right: a rising tide does lift all boats. ,

(9) Fire the Joint Tax Committee. The biggest obstacle to tax cuts this year was Lindy Paul, the s;affdirector at the Joint Tax Committee, which predicts the revenue losses h m tax cuts. Lindy Paul consistently vastly overstated the "cost" of the tax cuts, even predicting that a capital-gains cut would lose revenues, when history proves conclusively that capital-gdns tax cuts always raise revenues. If we want more tax cuts, we need to insist on real world scoring at the JTC.

(I 0) Want tax cuts? Vote Republican. Republicans win when they draw sharp distinctions with Democrats. On the tax issue, they have done just that. Every Republican in the Congress, save two (Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and the aforementioned Mr. McCain) voted for tax cuts. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership and all the lefi-whg interest groups rallied against tax cuts. This sharp distinction on the tax issue can only help the Republica&, which is now genuinely the party of Ronald Reagan.

So conservatives should take some Prozac and cheer up. We've just passed the third-largest tax cut since World War IT. This might not have been a Reaganesque accomplishment - but it's awfully close.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

LOAD-DATE: June 13,2001 .

. .

aketurn to Full

LexkNexis.TM Academk . '

. . I .'

. . I ' : . . .

. . . Copyright 2001Wews World Communicati ns, Inc. The Washington Times , Y . .

I , ' .

. I \ ' '

May 27,2001, Supday, Final Edition'i

. .

. SECTION: PART B; COMMENTARY; Pg. B3

LENGTH: 813 words . . ',

. .

I *' BYLINE: Stephen Moore e .

. . BODY: . . .

. .

. 4 . ' . .

. I ' , . .

?I! The $1.3 trillion tax bill, that is on its way to President Bush's desk, alas, has one monumental defect.. ,k : . The tax plan provides too'little tax reduction too late to help the economy any iime soon.'This is a problem that I and .others have been blaring with a megaphone to the White House and the congressional leadership since the tax debate .r

I,, I I I I I I I I: I

started back in January.

Apparently, no one is listening. The tax bill has gotten less 'economically stimulative, smaller in size, and more back-end loaded as it has meandered its way through Congress. What Congress is about to pass is a tax bill that would be terrific for America if we were living in 201'1. I . I . . . .

. .

But, of course, this is 2001. And in 2001 the economy and the stock market are ailing. But the data below show that the tax cut does not provide much juice for the economy until about 2005. A supply-side tax stimulus is needed right now - not in 2005 and beyond.

This bill is not just the wrong medication for the economy. It is also politically boneheaded. In 2002, the Republicans must try to hold precarious majorities in the House and Senate in crucial midterm elections.

In 2004, Mr. Bush must run for re-election. In other words, Republicans will face voters twice before having provided almost any short-term tax policy changes to enhance capital investment, saving, risk-taking or job creation.

I

4 '

*

Now it is certainly plausible that the animal spirits of the information age economy, with some useful prodding fkom the accommodationist Federal Reserve policy of late, may muscle the high tech and manufacturing sectors back into shape even without any tax cut stimulus. The economy may soon roar back to Me, in which case the Republicans will. behomefiee. , .

But what if it doesn't? What if the economy remains stalled and the stock market continues to slip into bearish territory? Investor class voters are not goingto be happy campers. Under a bearish scenario the political implications 3

are almost 100 percent predictable: congressional Republicans will get wiped out in 2002. Mr. Bush may be evicted not long thereafter. And they will get tossed out because of their failure to rescue the economy when they had the opportunity to do so.

Why, for heaven's sake, take that chance?

As currently drafted, the tax bill provides just one microscopic supply-side stimulus to the economy before November

I

I

I

. .

I

. . . .

. . . .. . . . . , .. . , , . . . a : . .

. . . . .. . .- , .. . 1 . I .. ... . . . ' . I ' '

, . _.' . I . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . ' . . . .

a ; .: . . . : . _. . .

2002:lt nicksthe top tax rate down from '$3.6 percent to.'38.6 percent. And then ihere'is no krther reduction:in.the' .,

." highest tax rdte until 20051 That's what all the liullabaloo is about? This has about as much'chance . . of.hot-wi&ig . the' .' .. .. ,

I

' economy as a butter knife.has of cutting down a mighty o'dk'tree., -. ' I . '.,

, . . I . . :,. . _ . '

Now it's certainly clear that the anti-growth Democrats in Congress: constitute'an imposi Republicans' passing even a mildly stimulative tax bill. The Gemocrats have become so ideology that they are now seemingly genetically incapable'of endorsing any change in t economy. Any change in tax policy that would crea<e prosperity, might dso'inadvert Daschle and Dick Gephardt will have none of that. ,

Georgia's Sen. Zell Miller, the one Democrat who has consistently supported tax cut colleagues, noting that they are "is no longer the party of pro-growth tax-cutting as .i

. . . . . . . '

I ' I

',

i IWI Tragically, he is right. la

I ea I I Ph. v4 capital-gains cut is the'one taxxhange that could almost immediately rally the stock mark&.-stim.ulate 'capital ~r investment, and reverse the diought in venture capital funding that is dragging do* the high-tech sector of the . .

'*'L 'I'

. . . .

. ..

. . .

. - . . , ' . . ..

I

, . . .. . . . . .

CC' Why not'add a three-year capital gains tax cut to 15 percent, effective immediately?' Sens. Wape Allard, Colorado . . . .

Republican, .and Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Repub1ican;have sponsored an amendment.,to do just this. A . - I

[ . I ' . .

. . 9' economy. To :do this will cost virtually nothing in terms of lost .revenue. 'It is virtually a free tax,cut, that'will do, I c3 world of good. It is an insurance policy against recession, ind that's a policy that every Republican up for reelection, .'*, in 2002 should gladly take out.

I !?+J 1

' .

. .

I

I S

Whether it is fair or not, this is the George W. Bush economy, stupid. Passing a tax bill with delayed tax cuts'in 2005 and beyond puts both the economy and the GOP in needless p e d

Fix it in the House-Senate Conference by getting rnox tax relief and rate reduction up fiont and by demanding a capital-gains cut. This 1Yill require President Bush to fight for further cuts and even risk defd . He will need to stand off the class-warfare rhetoric that will be thrown in his face. But he will prevail, because Americans want a tax cut now not five years fiom now.

I

. -

. - This fight will give Mr. Bush and the Republicans a victory.that they can truly savor. . , .

. .

Stephen Moore is president.of the Club for Growth.

GRAPHIC: Chart, TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE: REVENUE GROWTH VS. TAX CUTS, By The Washington Times

LOADDATE: May'27,' 2001

, . I

. .. I .

. . . .

I

' c . . I

I

' 4R.eturn t o Full

I

. . . ' LexisWkxisTM .Academic I .

Copyright 200 1" News World Communicati y, Inc.

May 16,2001, Wednesday, Final Editi.0;

The Washington Tines- '

: _ . I \ ' '

. . I . .

' . SECTION: PART . . A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 I ' .

LENGTH: 868 words -..a I Tr HEADLINE: Party of grand old spenders? c3 '

I

e3 , I

, f ~ BYLINE: Stephen Moore .

~4 BODY:

. .

I '

, ' 0 ' I .

I .

. I .

Don't look now, but with the budget agreement reached this week, it now appears that federal spending is going to end 'J" up growing at about 7 percent this year - or almost twice the spending rate under Bill Clinton. Good thing we've got 951 Republicans in charge to keep government as smqll and confined as possible. I,

I

George W. Bush started the budget process with a reasonable, but slightly ovTeight budget. He called for 4 percent growth in spending.(Inflation, correctly measured, is running at maybe 1 percent.)

The budget deal struck this week between the Congress and the White House ratchets that spending number up to almost 4.5 percent. Some of this extra spending, of course, was due to demands by those dirty, rotten Democratic spendaholics up on Capitol Hill. But a lot of it was a result of demands by those no-good spendaholic Republicans that seem to be dominating the Republican agenda these days in Congress. Many Hill Republicans, who pontificate against big government, were quietly breathing a sigh of relief over the new inflated baseline in federal spending.

Now a'4.5 percent growth rate of the federal budget may not seem like the end of the world - and it isn't. But George W Bush campaigned for president on the promise that he would hold spending to a 4 percent rate of growth. So here's the problem: We're not even going to end up within spittin' distance of 4 percent. History teaches us that the spendmg levels set by the budget resolution in the spring become floors, not ceilings, on allowable expenditures. Once the congressionhl appropriators start mending together the actual budget bills in the summer and fall, spending inevitably gets ratcheted up.

My prediction of 7 percent spending growth this year is based on several fiscal reality checks. First, expect to see about $5 billion to $1 0 billion in "emergency spending" for victims of drought, floods, hurricanes, mmors and the like. My estimate for emergency spending is conservative and falls somewhat below the average for the past four years.

.

The budget will grow faster'this summer and fall than currently advertised for other reasons. First, Republicans will surely capitulate to Democratic demands for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs. Figure that to add at the very I

least another $10 'billion to $15 billion a year to spending. Second, the Rumsfeld Commission on military restructuring ' will almost certainly call for more dollars into the defense budget. I'll sidestep the issue of whether the $300-billion-a-year Pentagon actually needs more money, because that's beside the point. The point is there will be more rnoney-for defense that isn't 'now accounted for in the current budget estimates.

I

a

Now the Democrats .are making a play to allow up to half of the $1 00 billion tax cut stimulus plan for new spending, not LAX relief. Of course, if government spending could stimulate the economy, .we would see soaring rates of GDP and ,

I

I

. .

. .

I

; . . . . .

I '

I'

. . . .

I.

. . . . . . . . .

. . . ' I . .. . . . . . . . . . . I . " . .. .

.- . .. 1

, . , , * .:. . . . . . ... ' *. .. ::'..:

. . . . . . . . . :

. . job growth right now. After all, last year the budget rose by almost 8 percent..

What's behind this shopping spree impulse that has invaded"Capito1 Hill of late? Blame the tower& tax:suqluses that make extra spending seem. prudent and .affordable. Put a fat budget surplus. estimate in front of.approp?iatos and they 1 start drooling uncontrollably like Pavlov's dog. This year's sur@us is .on tapto .exceed~$200,~billion,~depending .. . . , . . . _ on ' , ,

I Now some in Washington are already making excus~'for.,~e:coming: Shopping spree. this year is justified to make up for some years of excess'bFly tight budgets. 'We need, "investments" in federal programs to make up for the years of neglect. What neglect?'Federal:.spnding hasn't been I . held under tight reins in recent years. In fact, just the ,opposite is true. The federal budget fordiscretionary spending -.

. . has risen from $534 billion in 1996 to $646 billion this year. Nondefense discretionary spenahg has risen by 2 percent

I I

'

. . -.-. -, I :;

. . . . .. , . . . . ... :.' . I .. . .

whether Congress passes a $100 billion tax rebate. . . .. .

. . . . . . . ,

to 5 percent over thisfive-year period.

E3 The bottom line here is that someone has to start holding the line on spending. If 0 3 grow at twice the rate it did under Mr. Clinton, many. conservatives. are going to 'start asking .the legitimate question: '' What are Republicans good for? Of course, if the GOP .can deliver the crown jewel ,of their'economic program, the

$1.5 trillion tax cut, this could excuse some excessive celebratory spending this year. But 8.Tpercent increase? vd

qr The ultimate defase against ,&is spending bulge is the presidential veto. Mr. Bush. must signal to'Congress that percent to 5'percent spending growth is a cap that he will enforce with his, veto pen. Powem presidents have proved

r%. they can use the veto to grow their clout, not as an expenditure of political capital. Mr. Bushkbudget vetoes would be fv '

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Washington already has one party of big government,. Wi surely don't need

I I . . - . I .

I

. . . . . . I all the more bheered by taxpayers if they were rejections of Republican pork.

I

I I I I I I I I I I

two.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club.for Growth.

LOAD-DATE: May 16,2001 '

I:

. . .

. .

. .

I

. .

. .

I . . - . ,

_... ' I

rReturn t o Full

. .LexisN$xisTM Academic :, .

I .

. . Copyright 200T'NkWs WorId Commynicatiys; Inc. . The Washington Times - ,

: . I \ ' '

May 06,2001, Suqday, Final Edition i . '

. .

SECTION: PART . . B; COMMENTARY; Pg. B3 ,

LENGTH: 814 words

HEADLINE: Playing economic'word games . . ' I , i

c.J ' .

w I . I cd BYLINE: Stephen Moore . ' .

IF*. ' . .

~f BODY: .

I

I

I '

I ' , .

. .

. ' :

George W. Bush is being accused of a terrible sin: "talking down the economy.'' Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, recently complained that Mr. Bush's negative vibes are "very harm@l to the economy.'' I I

Pb .pd Apparently, what we need fiom Washington now to bring jobs back and rally the stock market is happy talk When

Mr. Bush refers to the slump in the economy or mentions the dreaded "R-word,", he is accused of torpedoing the economy for his own political gain. The left is still stewing over a statement made by Dick Cheney right after the I

I I I I, I

I I I, I

i

elections when he urged passage of the Bush tax cut because "we might be on the verge of recession.'' Goodness, how reckless of the vice president.

The allegation that the Bush administration has been exaggerating the weakness of the economy is absurd on several fronts. First, the economy is weak. The latest economic news that the gross domestic product grew by.2 percent in the first quarter of 2000 points hopefully to our steering clear of a recession. A recession is technically two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. But we're hardly out of the woods yet.

The manufacturing and high-tech sectors have been in recession for at least eight months now. The Federal Reserve Board reported last month that Americans lost some $2 trillion in the stock market in the fourth quarter of 2000. That's a far cry fiom prosperity.

In any case, how in the world does George W. benefit from economic pessimism? Let's assume for a minute Mr.' Bush's critics are right: that Mr. Bush's mere utterances can cause a crisis in confidence and that a gloomy outlook from the White House can become a self-Mfilling prophecy. If that's the case, the administration's incentive is to be as Pollyanish as possible. After all, it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are going to get thrown out of office en masse in 18 months if the economy continues to tank.

4 '

L

.

Mr. Bush hasn't been talking down the economy at all, in fact, if anything he has been too slow to acknowledge the slowdown. He has refused to capitalize on the ailing economy to boost the case for a bigger and faster tax cut. In fact, it's the Democrats, not the White House, who have proposed an $80 billion tax rebate stiniulus this year to get money into the pockets of consumers quickly. What for, if we're not in recession?

When George W.'s father was president the very same liberal critics skewered Bush Sr. for his failure to acknowledge and respond to the recession. George Bush Sr. was said to be insensitive to the plight of the working man - out of touch and unable to "feel the pain" of real America. Now the son is attacked for being overly sensitive to laidyoff workers and for paying too close attention to the stream of negative economic news. The Bushes can't win.

.

. .

I

. .

1 . 1 . . I

. .

I

I

I'

. . . . I ' . . .

. . . . . .

. . . ! . .

I .

? ' . .. '.

, But here's the most preposterous allegation of all. In an April 13' commentary .in the National Journal; titled: "The. I . ' power of negative thinking," reporter John Maggs says George W.'s economic pessimism i s nearly.-unprecedented.- He

quotes fidy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, who says he has never heard .a pres i~~nt .~ ' r ; -d~~o~ js tent ly ' dour about the economy. According to Mr. Kohut: "We're in new territory ,here. Presidents. usually say.:!everything is great, and I'm responsible.' N.ow we have one saying 'everythirlg is lousy,' and 'l'm not.responsfile,'..'i'; . ? ' . . , . . .

. . . . . . . . .. ,

. . . . . . I ..: .. . , , . . . .

. .

. .. - .. ,

Mr. Kohut, I would like to introduce you to s o m e o n ~ ~ ~ ~ i s name is Bill Clinton. There has arguably nevqrbeen .a president who .talked down .the economy more persistentIyfor: political gain than Mr. Clinton;.:His mantra as president . .

was that "we have the worst economy in 40 years." WheghF announced his record tax increase.Jo the American people, he said it -was: necessary because the budget. outlook was "much.worse than I thoughf'!Tl& was all utter . .

' hogwash.' The economy had grown at a brisk pace for a fuil year before .Mr. Clinton became.'president. ,The budget, . . ' ~

outlook did not change much before and .after Mr. Clinton's election.. . . ' , ,

.

. . . . .. .

. . . . . . . . ' ._ , ... '

,. ' . . . . ,

.

P.C. Mr. Clinton was aided in this canard by a compliant media that throughout the 1992'presidentia.I . . . . &npaign . portkyed C3 the U.S. economy in the most dire terms, even though the recession ended in mid4991 ; $0 P4 '

' A One last point. Can presidents successfblly steer the,economy up and down just through their .wordsof confidence or ,,.i malaise? Perhaps a bit. Jimmy 'Carter just exuded doom and gloom, and every time he opened.his mouth the co

V investor.confidence. . 0

' , .

. . ...';.,," . . . . . . " ... . . . .

I

. . .

c i seemed to take a tum for the worse. Ronald Reagan's optimism- and can-do attitude was cleady

. . . . . .

I

But let's facy it: There's only one politician in this new-economy age who can magically move markets with a mere gesture, facial expression or brief utterance. And his name is not George W. Bush. It's Alan Greenspan.

h I tv

. .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

GRAPHIC: Ulustration, NO CAPTlON, By Cummings

LOAD-DATE: May 6,2001 I:

. .

. .

1

I

. . . . .

. .

. I

. ..

. z

, _ . . , . . . .

.. . . .

I 4Retut-n to Full i . .

' : . . . ' LexiaNexisfM' Academic :,

I .

' Copyright 20dl"Klews World,Co~nqmnicati~ns, Inc. ' The Washington Times .

April 01,2001, Sqnday, Final Edition. : . I \ ' '

SECTION: PART B; COMMENTARY; Pg. BI ,

LENGTH: 952 words i

... I , I g' HEADLINE: Tax-cut tips for slow 'learners I

I

. I

0 ' a .

WJ BYLINE: Stephen 'Moore

I '

. . Ih -i BODY . .

. 0 ' 8 . . ' . .

Watching the tax debate unfold on Capitol Hill, you would think Congress has been infected with Mad Cow Disease. 1; Both the Republicans and Democrats seem to be trying to outdo each other with dimwitted tax cut proposals designed ,,,+% to help shore up the economy, but with almost no real stimulative effects and almost no chance of reviving the p~ moribund stock market. I i I I I I I I I I I

I

A case in point: Last week, as the Dow-Jones and the Nasdaq stock markets continued to plunge into gloomy bearish territory, causing almost all analysts to now concede that a recession is imminent, the House Republicans voted to increase the child exemption fiom $500 to $1,000 per kid. Will someone please tell these people that while they dither, Rome is burning. A $500 tax credit for kids may be good social policy to help families with kids pay their bills, but it doesn't do squat for a limping economy that has seen net worth fall by more than $2 trillion just since Election Day.

Meanyhile, Sen. Pete Donienici, New Mexico Republican, called for a $60 billion tax rebate this year. Mr. Domenici deserdes praise for at least calling for a lot more short-term tax relief than is contained in the House-passed plan - which is so back-loaded that it offers an insultingly small cut this year and next. But a tax-rebate plan is the economic equivalent of flying a helicopter over Central Park in New York and dumping dollar bills out the window as a way to stimulate the economy. It's not going to work.

Equally baffling is the Democratic tax cut alternative. That plan calls for cutting the bottom tax rate fiom 15 to '1 0 percent right now. Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, says the logic here is to put hundreds of dollars back into the pockets of the lowest-income taxpayers so they can rush out and spend to juice the economy.

I

- ..

Now admittedly the idea imbedded in both plans, which is that we should take tens of billions of dollars out of the federal treasurymd give it back to workers, makes a lot of sense. And it can't hurt the economy. But both these plans ' .

are about the worst possible way to cut taxes if the goal is to restore prosperous times.

.

I

The probIem - as I have been saying ad nauseum for two months now - is that Capitol Hill is shackled to demand-side logic on tax cuts. They find intellectual support fiom people like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who .writes that tax cuts must stimulate consumer demand if they are to aid the economy.

1

But what's needed now is supply-side incentivizing tax-rate cuts. that reduce the tax penalty on economically productive behavior. Supply-side tax cuts reduce tax rates in order to reward saving, investment and work.

. .

Consider the idea of cutting the bottom tax rate. Imagine for a moment we had a tax system that'taxed people at 15 .

I

. .

I

'. I I I

. I

I .

8

. .

1

. . . . :. 1 ' . , '

I'

. .

. . . . . . .

.. . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . I" . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , , -: . ji.'

. .

percent for working on Monday, 28 perceni on Tuesday;3 1 percent on W.ednesday, 36 percent on Thursday,'and 40 percent on Friday. (This simplistic model actualIy isn't too far from the reality of our present day graduated income tax', rate system.) Now it stands to reason that a lot of people would quit working on. Fridays ofperhaps WGk uqtil noon: In fact, even though the tax rate is higher on Friday than on Monday, .tax oollections on Monday 'could, easily be higher than on Fridays. There'would clearly be less economic activity on .Fridays than on .Mondays;":::'". . . . . . . '! ::. :.';.. - ' :.: ' . . , . ' ' ,

Would Et make any sense to cut the tax rate on Mondays, but not the tax rate on Fridays? None' whatsoeyer. That, , .

however, in a nutshell is the reigning tax- cut propo~~~'on,,CapitoI,HiI!; Cut the lowest tax,rate, but not'thehighest tax rate. Many Republicans, petrified of claims of "tax cuts foi the rich,'' wish to cut the lowest . . . . income.tax , - . . rate, but to . .

The rebate plan submitted by Sen. Pete Domenici, New Mexico Republican, is well-intenti d,':but ais0 off-base. :If you took the income tax structure'as described above, and tried to fix things. by giving every fainily $50 a.week, they

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

... ..... z . . .. , :.. _ _ ' _ '

. I

. . . . . . . I. . . . .

. . . I . . ,delay cutting the'highest rate. As I,said, a clear sign of Md Cow Disease:

, , . . . . .

still may not work on Fridays any longer - in fact, with the added giveaway dollars in . . . . . their,pockets, they may choose . . . . .

. . . .:. . ',. , '.:

a . . . I

0 to work less on Fridays, not more. . . .

I I I I: I I t I I I

Clearly, if the goal is to generate more economic output, you cut the highest tax rate - j.e., the tax rate for working on Fridays. Economist Arthur Laer , who converted Ronald Reagan to supply-side economics 25 years ago, has ar ed that we should raise, not low& the bottom tax rate, and then dramatically lower the top tax rate in order to creat a ' fairer aqd more uniform tax rate on every day of the week. e

I

The logic here leads us inexorably toward the tax ideal: a flat rate tax system: One uniform low tax rate paid by everyone. T6 get to a flat rate tax, the top income tax rate has to come dpwn a lot - fiom 40 percent today, to perhaps 20 percent or 25 percent tomorrow. Lowering the bottom rate only makes the tax rate system steeper to climb.

The bottom line is this: There is almost no economic benefit to chopping the lowest tax rate, but a world of benefit ,

from chopping the top rate as much and as soon as possible. The fiscal aimulus the economy needs should come fiom shaving the top income tax rate from 40 percent to 33 percent right now. A capital-gains tax cut would have a similarly immediate positive impact, especially on stock values. If we were to cut the capital-gains tax from 20 percent to 10 percent, the lower tax rate would be instantly capitalized into the value of stocks.

The economic logic here seems so straightforward that it should be compelling, even to the herd of mad cows on Capitol Hill.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

GRAIPHIC: Cartoon (color), CONGRESS / TAX CUT, By H. Payne

LOADADATE: April 1,2001

8 1

1

_ .

" . . I

* .

. e

. .

: .

. 4Return to Full

. . ' Lex'isNkxisTM Academic, :. .

1 .

' ' Copyright 200'1 New& World .Comxqunicatiops; Inc. . _

.

The Washington Times. . , \ . .

. February 28,2001, Wednesday, Final Edition

SECTIQN: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. AI 6 ,

LENGTH: 1037 words ....a I 4 HEADLINE: . Face-off. :. as budget bell rings

O? pd BYLINE: Stephen Moore P h . '

I

. I

. . . . .

' I

! . . .

. . I.. IL'4 BODY: hJ It's been said about Congress that there are real1y.three political parties on Capitol Hill: Republicans, Democrats and 1 appropriators. President Bush is going to discover the truth of that maxim in coming months when he tries to sell his p+ budget plan to Congress. David Stockman, President Reagan's first budget director, noted'in his book "The Triumph pd of Politics" that the biggest adversaries to fiscal conservatism were often pork-barreling congressional Republicans. I I I I I I I I I I I

1

The good news is that the budget that Mr. Bush has unveiled this week is a pleasant surprise. It's relatively tightfisted, capping federal domestic spending growth at below 4 percent for 2002. That's still too much, but it's a big improvement over the 6 percent rate of growth of spending in the last few Clinton years. Mr. Bush's budget also smartly leaves plenty of room for the $1.6 trillion tax cut, and it even reserves an additional $1 trillion for the Bush campaign proposal of allowing about 15 percent of workers' payroll tax dollars to be placed in personal retirement accounts.

In m y ways, this is the most Reaganesque budget submitted by a president skce the Gippeis 1 s t one submitted to Congress back in Janua~y 1989. The Bush plan offers more dollars for defense and unfortunately a preposterously large 9 percent bulge in the education budget, but all other domestic programs are held at or below thelinflation rate. ("he cardinals on the appropriations committee are already grousing, which is a good sign.) If Mr. Bush has his way, over the next five years, federal spending will fall below 18 percent of national output for the first time in 40 years. Budget Director Mitchell Daniels deserves high praise for this impressive blueprint for the new administration.

The Bush plan can now be conveniently juxtaposed alongside the more pro-spending congressional Democrat alternative. House Minority Leader Richard A. Oephardt of Missouri and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota recently endorsed a scheme calling for a third of the budget surplus to go to new domestic federal spending. That's $1 trillion more spending on top of the $1 trillion inerease in expenditures already built into the budget base line over the next decade. Ergo, Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Daschle desire $2 trillion in new spending through 201 1. That's more than the entire net income of every resident of Ohio, Michigan and Illinois put together. The Democratic plan reinforces the validity of Mr. Bush's warning that if the t'akes areq't cut, the money will be eagerly spent.

Alas, the Bush budget has two severe defects. First, it doesn't eliminate any ineffective or outdated federal programs. There are no programs zeroed out in this document, which is unforgivable given that there are thousands of programs crammed in the budget and hundreds of them no longer serve any public purpose. Any budget termination list should include the National Endowment for the Arts , the Legal Services Corporation, wool and mohair subsidies, Department - of Commerce grants to Fortune 500 companies, the Export Import Bank and. . . . . Well, you getthe picture.

I

1

*

, i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. '. ' . . I . . . . . -. . .. eo ... . . . . . , : : : . . .

I

I I

. .

. .

I. . . .

I'

. .

. .

All of this is to say that the Bush administr&on needs to hold up a few scalps at the end of the-year to prove that I ' Republicans in control of government are capable of ending progrms, not just starting new ones. There's no reason

that federal agencies should be endowed with the gift of eternal life. -

The other defect of this budget document is the record-setting expansion for the Department of Edu the same agency Newt Gingrich and his colleagues six years ai0 correctly called for abolishing. N boasting that the $40 billion he wants to spend on the Education Department would be "the big&st increase in the Department of Education budget" since it was create&y Jimmy Carter as a sop to the teachers unions back in 1978. There's no way to sugar coat the lunacy of the Bush educi4bn plan: These extra federal dollars spent on school programs dl1 be a colossal waste of money. And in fact, most Republicans who will vote for Mr. Bush's new federal education initiatives know full well that this money will do virtually zilch to improve our neighborho4 schools. For. 20 years, more federal education dollars have been associated with worse school perform Department doesn't deserve more money, it deserves a wrecking ball.

- -

I

rima)

PqBut on balance, Mr. Bush has now written a commendable budget. Enforcing it will be a much bigger challenge. Mr. @>Bush may be forced to demonstrate his commitment to fiscal fitness by vetoing congressional spending bills - even if "they're primarily sponsored by Republicans - whenever those budget bills exceed his bvdget requests. After the past +i few years of a continuous spending spree on Capitol Hill, the Republicans need to reestablish their anti-big q-government credentials, and tlie White House will ultimately have to play the role of fiscal edorcer. qr E3 That won't be easy. Mr. Bush promises to hold the line on spending in precisely the areas where Congress has in recent bh years fattened federal appropriations. Since 1996, federal domestic discretionary spending - the area of the budget

where the lohest priority programs ranging fiom Energy Department initiatives to the Legal Services Corporation to

Ph

I '

I

t I

t I

I I I I

I

corporate welfare-grants are storehoused - has surged by more than 20 percent. Last year, domestic appropriations bills were padded with some $30 billion in added expenditures in the last days of the congressional session. That extra spending over 10 years reduced the expected surplus available for tiax cuts #by some $250 billion. That would have been enough money to "pay for" the entire and immediate repeal of the death tax.

I

Mr- Bush's plan is an economic policy trifecta for conservatives. It constrains spending, funds a $1.6 trillion true. cut and reserves funds for private Social Security accounts. These are budget priorities worth fighting for. Whether Mr. Bush does or not will in large part detennine the success or failure of his presidency.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

.

LOAD-DATE: February 28,2001 .

: I ,

. .

. .

I

. . I

. : . . .

. .

* . : ', (I) . . , ' 4Return to Full . ' . .

. .

, .

. . I

. . . . . . .

LexisNexisTM .Academic . . . ..

I .

. . I*?.'*.!IJ 4 . .

. ' '. ',# , '

. . . . Copyright 200A News World Conmunications, Inc.

February 23,2001, Friday, Final Edition ' . . I

. , The WashingtonTimes, . \ ' . .

. . ' ) . 1' ,

' SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A 16 . . . . . I ' LENGTH: 981 words

I I . '

. .

. . ' , . .

IN HEADLINE: Digging up dirt on death taxes .*#.

I . '

. . . Q d .

I eo BYLINE: Stephen Moore

I' Q-4 BODY: qr Just because someone is really, really wealthy, doesn't mean that he is well-endowed with common sense. h p t3 Earlier this week a handful of the richest people on the planet, including George Soros, Warren BdT$tt and Paul h Newman urged Congress not to eliminate the death tax. More than 100 other rich peop1e.took out an ad this weekend 1'" in the New York Times, essentially saying "Please tax us." Estate tax advocates in Washington are exulting that even

* who have spent a lifetime pouring sweat equity into their family-owned firms. I I

the nation's yacht-owners don't want this tax repealed.

The truth is that these fabulously wealth Americans aren't being nearly as selfless as it may seem. Most billionaire families have long ago engaged in careful estate tax planning-by, for example, depositing their fortunes into family foundations or by creating generation skipping &sts - to avoid ever having the long arm of the Internal Revenue Service reach mto their graves for even a dime.

Let's take the example of Mr. Soros. According to research by Brett Fromson of TheStreet.com, there me very few

investments are "offshore" hedge funds that are often exempt from U.S. taxation. l'Soros can a f f a r d to support high inheritance taxes," writes Mr. Fromson, "given the enormous personal income tax advantage he enjoyd' Now I personally have no objection to Americans engaging in legal tax avoidance. It's smart personal finance. But Mr. Soros shouldn't then tun around and hypocritically urge other people to pay more taxes, when he finds so many clever ways to avoid U.S. taxes himself.

The dirty little secret of the death tax is that the people who are clobbered by this tax are not billionaires. They are typically ordinary Americans with medium sized estates - the millionaire next door.

T am talking about ranchers, farmers, and self-starter businessmen and women. They arejhe risk-takers in our society

1

her iqans who have been so successful at gaming our tax system as the billionaire financier. Many of Soros - _

I I taxed when the income was earned during the deceased's lifetime.

I to society their whole lives. (The image of Ted Kennedy may jump to mind here.) But as Professor Edward McCaffery

They become anguished and enraged when they discover that their reward for a life of virtue is a confiscatory death ,

tax that will rob their grave. Every year there are thousands of heirs who m forced to literally sell the f k l y farm or business just to pay the estate taxes. It's particularly unjust given that this tax is imposed on dollars that were already

I

I

Now Mr. Buffett worries that without a death tax America vhll become a society of pampered third and fourth-generation inheritors hoarding their family fortunes without ever working an honest day's wages or contributing '

! .

. .

I

I . .

. . . I

. .

. .

I -

. . I

. . I . ' . ! .

. . . . .. . , . . . . . . .

. b,

. . . .

I , 'of USC Law School argues, "If breaking up 'large concentrations of 1 . miserable failure." The. Kennedys and Rockefellers who still. have massive family fortunes .despite the.estate, taxil

I I vice and punish virtue. Where is the tax fairness in that,&. Soros? ,Mr. buffet? Rep. Richard;Geph&dt?

1' #One last argument that is used by the billionaires is that i fhe were to getrid ofthe death:- ' charities. But there are volumes. of evidence that charitable giving.is influenced by economi

.

I . . - . ' . . . . . . . * .

' The death'tax rewards the'very life of lavish and'unproductive c.onsumption it i s intended. to' . &scoqage..~'Thib . , ,.. . tax says to the elderly: Live high on the. hog; 'wrap yourself in.every material codort; eat, drink, be merry. ,You can't take it. with you, and you can't leave most of it to your kids. Your goal is to die broke - the ultimate;fo*of.tax:avoidance.; . '

Meanwhile the frugal man or .woman who scrimps and saves and selflessly builds up a legacy to ,leave to his and her children, is clobbered by a death tax that allows the JRS to snatch more than half. Through thideath tak,'we reward

': .. .. . . . . . .. .. '. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. . _ I . . .

d. destroy private much more thin

by the value of charitable tax deductions. In the 1980s, the value of charitable deductions fell 'almost half', but . '

E charitable giving soared. Ws insulting to say Americans give to their churches or the Red Cross or the Salvation Army because they want a tax break. Granted, it is true that without the death tax, there would be fewer Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, but given how these Foundations have misspent money in recent decades, that wouldn't be such a bad thing at all.

George W. Bush is right to demand the end to the death tax. We consider ourselvqs to be the freest nation on but we currently have the second-highest death tax in the industrialized world. Many nations that seem much T m socialistic than our own, like France and Sweden, impose much less onerous estate taxes than we do. This confiscatory tax collects a meager 1.5 percent of total revenues.

Some studies have predicted we would get more tax money, not less if &e abolished the tax. George Mason university economist Richard Wagner, an expert on federal tax policy, has come to precisely this conclusion. He says that because the death tax channels billions of dollars of capital into economically unproductive and complicated tax shelter schemes, the tax reduces economic growth and thus costs the economy jobs and tax revenues. The death &,'of course, is not bad news for every industry: There are thousands of tax lawyers and crafty accountants whose livelihoods depend on preserving this tax.

I ,

t

I

I

I find myself in the unusual situation of siding with Hillary Clinton, not George Soros in this debate. Last fall while campaigning for the Senate in New York, Mrs. Clinton said: "You ought to be able to leave your land.and the bulk of your fortunes to your children and not the govement." Fortunately, 3 out of 4 Americans agree with her. .

Stephen Moore is the president of the Club for Growth. . .

GRAPHIC: Cartoon, NO CAPTION, By LuridCartoon News Magazine (2000 Worldwide Copyright By Cartoonews International Syndicate, NYC, USA)

I

LOAD-DATE: February 23,2001

. I

. .. I

. -

I

. . .

. .

' _ : m rReturn to Full

Copyright 20031 N~WS World Cornrnunikations, Inc. The Washington Times.

February 07,2001, Wednesday, Final Edition . . _ ' , \ ' .

, .

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1 5 . .

LENGTH: 900 words

. . n :

1 r y HEADLINE: Virginia's defectors.to the pro-taxlobby

co BYLINE: Stephen Moore . . t f?d

. . .

' Q.4 . I

I

, ' I ' . . . .

. .

1' L .

? .

' I .

G; It's a classic man-bites-dog story. Virginia's biggest and most influential business groups are supporting higher state cr taxes and spending. Industry associations ranging from the Virginia Chamber of Commerce to the Northern Virginia

Roundtable have concluded that the only way this state can continue to prosper% by adding more beef to the budget, Ipc and suspending any talk of tax cuts. 6 4 4 I Now the Virginia legislature, controlled by tlie Republicans, is poised to vote to'halt the car tax repeal. Sen. John

I I I E I I I I I I

Chichester, a Republican from Sword, says halting the c a ~ tax repeal is "the only fiscally conservative thing to do." It is also politically and economically blunderous.

At stake here, of course, is whether Virginia voters will get the car tax repeal they have been promised and they voted overwhelmingly for back in 1997 when Jim Gilmore was elected governor. The car tax is the most hated tax in Virginia. It has been halfrepealed so far. Most Virginians want the levy stamped out completely. I suspect that speaks for the vast majority of business owners and their workers.

Not so the business associations, who supposedly speak for these workers and entrepreneurs. The Virginia Roundtable says that only by suspending the c a ~ tax repeal can Virginia "still maintain government's ability to provide priority programs such as public safety, education, and transportation sic ." They left out corporate welfare payments, on which Virginia spends tens of millions of dollars a year.

The Chamber of Commerce's statement is even more baffling. The Chamber says Virginia shouldn't cut taxes because "erosion of the commonwealth's superior reputation for fiscal conservativism would be a fkightful error." This is positively Clintonian rhetoric. What the Chamber is lobbying for is a tax increase (the car tax repeal has already been scheduled to take place under existing legislative agreements) and higher state spending. How is that fiscal conservatism?

Fortunately, Jim Gilmore has refused to knuckle under to the pro-tax business lobby and is fighting to preserve his legacy to Virginia: Complete repeal of the car tax by the time he leaves ofice. He not only has economic logic squarely on his side, but also a huge majority of the electorate. Now would be the worst possible time to betray the taxpayers in favor of Virginia's tax eaters.

!, I

Let's review the facts one m o r e b e on the state finances in Virginia. Every time the businessgoups start their greedy moan for more taxes, they portray Virginia as a state that has been bled of needed tiax revenues to fund "essential government services." By listening to the Chamber of Commerce, you would think state lawmakers were living on the Jenny Craig diet plain.

I , ' . . . . .

I ' . .

I,

. .

. . . . . - . .

. ' Far from it. Acpording to the National Association of State Budget Officers, last year, the ' ' ' ' grew by.11' percent. That was the sixth-fastest growing budget. of the.50 states. It's3 times

population growth lplus, inflation in Virginia. it is twice the rate of growth of the budset of neighbors, D.C. and M'aryland. Over the past 10 years, the Virginia.budget has .more than . . . . . . . .

Virginia families have seen their budgets double? . ;

Everyone in Virginia wants better schools and €ess &?igespd roads. But it 'is. an absolute canard to &e that we can only have better state services by raising taxes. The stat~4qyvmake.r~ would beiwise. to pay attention:-,b.:.the . ' . . 'work of the Virginia Public Policy Institute. The Institute's research sh<ws that very. few states have 'spent ,more. on schools, roads, andhighways over the past 10 years than Virginia. The problem for Virginia is that as we.ke.q.pouring more dollars I '

into the school system, the class. performance remains flat. ,There has just been no indicationthat . . . 'more inputs are ._

I .

- - . . . . . . . . . . . . :, ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . ,;. . .__ . . . . . . .

. . ' , . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

: I

> . . . . . . .

' . .

.....

i . . , _

. . . . . . . : . . .. ' producing better output.

I Since the early 1980s, Virginia has prospered as few other states have. By some estimates, there are now more

0 3 high-tech firms and workers in Virginia than in Silicon Valley. There are many explanations for why high tech has r~ found Virginia to be such a hospitable place to do business. It's a right-to-work state. It, offers quality public services.

low-tax areas. According to research by Ohio University econoniist Richard Vedder, more t h a ~ 1,000 people ev And yet the tax burden here is well below the national average. Businesses and high-skilled workers are

qr day move fiom high-tax to low-tax states.

p.. Economist Zsolt Besci at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta has found that raising taxes is seldom a defensible economic policy for states. To the contrary, Mr. Besci advises that ''lowering aggregate state and local marginal tax I rates is likely to have a positive effect on long-term growth rates.'' That's just the opposite of what the Chamber of Commerce is plkading for. It's worth noting that since 1995 more than half the states have cut tax rates to try to gain I ground on Virginia. t

Virginia businessmen who don't want their tax bills raised should stop paying dues to groups likethe Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, which are lobbying to do just that. For those who remain, I I would simply ask that they stop imposing their masochism on the rest of us.

Stephen Moore is an overtaxed Virginia resident and president of the Club for Growth.

1

r

LOAD-DATEk February 7,2001

. .

c

. . I '

. .

' 1

. .

. I

. j

I

" / . . . .

. E

. .

. 1

'. : . 4Retum to Full '

Le&l\lexisTM. Aca de,m ic

, . ' Copyright 2000+lews World Communications, Inc. , The Washington Times. \ '

December 22,2000, Friday, Final Editiop

. . . . . .

I .

. . , . ' , \ . . . .

.

. . I

. . . .

'

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A20

LENGTH: 897 words 1 '

I . ) I (kb HEADLINE: Tax cut advisory , ' ' . .

. pi I

. . I BYLINE: Stephen Moore, a .

, . p q BODY: ' . .

I

. .

: .

' I . . .

ci During the presidential campaign, Gorge W. Bush staked out a case for lowering taxes at a time when the economy T9' didn't really need a tax cut. Mr. Bush's economic adviser Larry Lindsey was right that a tax cut was warranted as an I, anti-recession insurance policy. Mr. Bush made a persuasive case that taxes are way too high for a camtry enjoying'

peace and prosperity. And he was exactly right that cutting taxes is the best way to prevent new spending. But a tax P I IN cut wasn't economically essential given the soaring economy at the.time.

'

I I I I I I I I I I

Well, the world has changed a lot in just the last two months. Now, a tax cut really is imperative. Fiscal drag is finally rearing its ugly head, weighing down the economy in general and the high-tech sector in particular. The financial markets have tumed dangerously bearish. Just since the election, roughly $1 trillion of wealth has disappeared because of sliding stock values.

The tax burden has risen from 18 percent to 21.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in just the past five years; The last time taxes were this high was the late 1970s, when the economy was in a mini-depression. Last year, total publickctor revenue surpluses were $300 billion - that's about 4 percent of GDP. Fiscal policy is way too tightly wound. A deep tax cut rescue plan is urgently needed.

If Mr. Bush doesn't cut taxes in his first 100 days, his presidency could suffer a crisis of public confidence right &om the get-go. All of his political enemies - like Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, are advising the new administration to shelve the tax cut for now, or drop rate reductions so the plan does not help the rich. No surprise here. Muddle-headed advice is exactly what one would expect from one's enemies.

What is surprising is how many of Mr. Bush's "allies" are serving up really dumb guidance. On Friday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois advised the president-elect to put issues like school fhding, debt retirement and health care reform ahead of tax cuts. And then as if an afterthought, Mr. Hastert said: "We can probably give Americans some tax relief to boot." Wow, Mr. Bush, you may be up against some pretty dense thinking inside your own party when you get to town.

-

I

I

t

If anything the economy is screaming for a bigger tax cut, not a smaller one, than the one Mr. Bush campaigned on. And features of the Bush tax proposal need to be refined given the new reality of economic slowdown on the horizon. So here are a few tax cut suggestions to help get the economy out of its rut:

*

. . . .

1. Make the tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1,2001. We need a supply side fiscal stimulus immediately - not in six months or even 100 days. Making the tax cut effective on Jan, 1 will trigger econo.mic activity instantly regardless of when the

I . . . ' .

. . . . . . I '

: ,.e. . . .-l tax cut is signed into law. . . . . .

. i . .

I . I . . . . . .

' ' 2. Eliminate the death tax immediately. The Republican bill 'is flawed. It gets rid of the death tax m :l-O-years. Thakl1.i never happen. Even Democrat Rep. Charles Range1 of New York wants the tax rate lower ih',the~firqt.'fe.w yebs than. the namby-p.amby Republican bill. Repeal the death tax - all of it ri@tnow.'Estates should be:.taxed, . . . . . . . .if:at all, at the

, . . . . . . . . . . . , .

- -..

. '.' , . . '

.: . :. . . . . . . _.

. . . .

I , .. C - . . , . .

. . I

. . capital gains rate. . .

I : '

i 3. Cut the capital gains tax to 15 percent now. The latcapjtal gains tax $ut was an unqualified.-s~~cessihigher revenues, more savings and a surge in asset values. All td,,arguments against the cap-gairg'cut amnow demonstrably wrong. Moreover, the cap-gains cut would be the single best I .. way.to revive the NASDAQ,which.is''do&n more than .

4. Don't give up on the income tax rate cuts. The rate cuts and the death tax repeal are the ,rnosi]economically

r=l United States has not. What's wrong with this picture? We're losing our competitive edge:. Taxkite cuts must 'bea

I

. . . I . . . . . .

-. . . . . . .' . .I . -. .

' ,. ,:.

' I

; . 40 percent over the past year. . .

i Fb beneficial features of the plan. In the past 18 months, Germany, Japan, France and even Russi.a.have cut tax rates. The

, co nonnegotiable item in your tax plan. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, the incoming. chairman of the Senate I

r" Finance Committee says that you should promote populist tax cuts with Democratic support,- such as mamiage penalty

4 rp.

relief. Maniage-penalty relief is fine, but it has no supply side growth incentives. w e need rate cuts. I . *

I d' 1 cr 5 . Make the switch to dynamic scoring of tax policy changes. Republicans have been complahing about static r enue I 0 analysis'for 20 years. Now they can and must do something about it. The GOP now has control of the compum-. Fix ).h them. A model that predicts that when we cut the capital gains rate, the Treasury is going to lose revenue when in fict r'.d it gains boat/loads of revenues is worthless. Dynamic scoring is critical to selling the tax cut. This has to be done. I -

1 '

immediately. I

6. End real income bracket creep. Your tax bill must insist upon indexing,the tax brackets for the increasc in nominal income each year. This does not cost any money in the near term but prevents the insidious hidden tax increases that cause the tax burden to rise automatically over time.

I

The key'is to use the political process to grow the tax cut; not to shrink it. The good new is that'pulr. Bush has a .

mandate to cut taxes. Now he's got to use it. . . . .

. . . . . .

Stephen.Moore.is president of the Club for Growth.

LOAD-DATE: December 22,2000 ' .

c

. .

. I

. . .

. .

. . I . ...

tReturn t o Full '

. .Lex,is:l)4exisTM Academic ' .

e .

. .

. .

Copyright'2000News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times. ' '

December OS, 2000, Friday; Final Edition : , ' , \ ' .

.'

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A I 9 . .

LENGTH: 1001 words I

.I.. I

! m HEADLINE: A taxcutter's h e m ' team

.'l=r BYLINE:StepbenMoore , . . . I .

P-i . I

QI

. .

1.h. . FJ BODY: . .

i .

. . . .

. .

. . . .

. . 4 '

. . I .

'V Ed Feulner, the esteemed president .of the Heritage Foundation, is fond ,of saying "peopleire policy." He's, of course, right about that, as we leamed during both the Reagan and the Bush presidencies. Conservatives had a premonition

'0 Dick'Darman was going to be a big problem in 1988, and ow worst nightmares' were confirmed. If Republicans are ' Fi going to move their agenda for tax cuts, private accounts for Social Security, and smallergovemment over'the next .

I' I 1 I I I I I I.

few years, they had better pay attention to getting the right people in the right policy-making slots.

Republicans are going to be judged on one performance measure: the economy, stupid. Did they keep the prosperity going? Already there are womsome signs of a fault line in the economy. Did the stock market rally of the past 18 years continue? The mvestor class is getting fidgety as tbeir wealth has begun to fall in the recent bearish times. If Republicans donlt reverse the trend, investors will, without recriminations, evict them from power in the next election.

There are three strategically vital economic positions that need to be filled with philosophically committed Reaganite tax cutters. They are Treasury secretary, director of the Ofice of Management and Budget, and Ways and Means Committee chainnan. There's a clearcut supply-sider's choice for each of these vacancies: Bill kcher for Treasury, John Kasich for OMB and Phil Crane for Ways and Means.

Bill Archer is one of the most admirable and admired men in Washington. (I don't mean that to sound like a backhanded compliment - as though he's the sanest inmate in the asylum.) Mr. Archer's tax-cutting credentials are also impeccable. As Ways and Means Committee Chainnan, he almost single-handedly bullied through Congress the 1997 capital-gains tax cut. He fought valiantly for cap-gains relief even after the GOP leadership was ready to cave in to the left's class warfare rhetoric. He's an unflinching fiee trader. He helped pass the most important social legislation of the past 40 years: welfare refom. He believes solemnly m sound money and is an inflation hawk.

In 1983, he was one of the most vocal opponents of the Social Security tax increase that the Greenspan Commission recommended and that President Reagan was hoodwinked by his disloyal advisers into endorsing and passing. He was one of the most effective critics of the Bush 1990 tax increase and the Clinton 1993 tax heist. In December 1994, he I

nearly gave the entire Washington press corps a collective coronary by announcing that as the incoming chairman of the Ways and Means Committee he wanted to scrap the income tax. There's not a more dogged advocate of overhauling the tax system. There's also no one in Washington who understands the tax system the way Mr. Archer does. (Mr. Archer actually fills out his own tax forms.)

,

1

*

And by the way, Gov. 'George W. Bush says he wants to fill some Cabinet slots with Democrats. Bill Archer w k a Democrat when he first came to Congress in the early 1970s. He's perfect.

. .

I

I

. I

I

. P,

. . . . . -- . .

I

i . . ' The Republicans need to rediscover an anti-big govemment'agenda, Right now there is none. Few. Republicans'believe . in small-government anymore - or at least enough to fight for it. The exception is John Kasich. He h3$t

single-handedly bullied the "Contract with America'' budget through the House of Represengitives in3 995 &hen he was Budget chairman. That budget plan called for eliminating 200 government programs and three'cabinet agencies He has taken on corporate welfare, pork, the military industrid coinplex. He has formed alliances &th Democrats like Tim Peimy and Green Party leader Ralph Nader to sweat waste out of the federal enterprise. He knows,the budget like the pope knows the Bible. He would be the K Streeflobbyists' and the congressional approp IS' worst nightmare.

There is no one who can better market leaner federal budkts (assuming that's what Republicans want) in a populist 'way to voters. Mr. Kasich insists he doesn't want the job. Mr. Bush needs to persuade him that his metry needs him. He's perfect, too.

Finally, the GOP needs someone who can write the tax legislation without buckling to the political pressures of the left. The Constitution states that tax bills must originate in the House. The good news is that the next in line for the Ways and Means Committee chairmanship is Phil Crane of Illinois. Mr. Crane's 30-year conservative credentials are stellar. He has a 90 percent lifetime National Taxpayers Union rating. He never saw a,tax rate cut he didn't like. He was a leading champion of Mr. Reagan's 198 1 tax rate cuts. He was for the flat tax long before it was cool. In 1970s he endorsed a flat tax df 10 percent.

The liberal wing of the GOP that opposes Mr. Crane grouses that he lacks the political gmvitas to run this committee effectively. Nonsense. For the past six years Mr. Crane has chaired the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee./Mr. Crane was a maestro in winning congressional support,for NAFTA, GATT and China fiee trade. That's an astonishingly bullish trifecta given the controversy surrounding each of these trade deals. If Mr. Crane is bypassed, it will be an insult to fiscal conservatives and a blow to economic common sense.

To make sure that the economy doesn't crater, Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress must ram an emergency tax cut through Congress within 100 days. They must immediately follow up with a legislative victory campaign for the Bush Social Security choice plan. The GOP needs leaders who (a) have decp convjctions that these plans are the right ones for America and (b) have a proven track record of success in navigating a pro-growth agenda through the shark-infested waters on Capitol Hill. Mr. Archer, Mr. Crane and Mr. Kasich: It's a supply-side dream team.

The GOP would be foolish ta let talent like this go to waste.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

O'V, , I

' - early

I 7 ) '

. . LOAD-DATE: December 8,2000 . .

. .

. I ,

_ .

. I

. . I

. I

_ .

I

_...

: . :*.. I dketum to Full ,

. . .

Lexi6;NexisT'. Aca de m'ic .,

I .

. Copyright 2000News World Communicati . ns, lnc.

November 29,2000, 'Wednesday, Final'Edkon

The Washington Times 9 ;, \ ' .

. .

SECTION:. PART . . A; COMMENTARY; Pg. AI 7

LENGTH: 825 words

HEADLINE: Keep the car tax .promise . .

1.. . 1

. I

BYL1NE:StephenMoore . ' . - .

. . BODY: '

. .

. .

. . .

. I . '

. .

' 0 ' I .

I .

I .

. .

It seems like just yesterday that Jim Gilmore became a national cause celebre with his "No Car Tax" appeal. Mr. Gilmore proved that the great American tax revolt is alive and well in America. The bumper stickers and the yard signs shouting "Kill the car tax" could seemingly be located on every boulevard and parking lot in the state. Mr. '

Gilmore's I997 landslide gubernatorial victory proved to the skeptics, many of whom sit' in the state legislature, that the most hated levy m the state of Virginia is the car tax.

Now some of those same legislative naysayers want to curtail the final phase-in of the car tax repeal. In an interview with The Washington Times Mr. Gilmore justifiably insisted on keeping his word.

Simply put, delaying the car tax would be a betrayal of the voters who put him in oflice and would be a stain on a record of four years of accomplishment in Richmond.

So far roughly half of the hated car tax has been repealed. That's expected to nse to 70 percent next year and then 100 percerikthe year after. If the truth be told, a lot of Virginians who voted for Gilrnore, and I include myself in that category, are stewing over the fact it has taken this long to get rid of the car tax. After Mr. Gilmore's election, many residents thought the tax would be gone in the first year of Mr. Gilmore's administration. Instead, we got a four-year phase-out.

b

So here we are with car tax repeal opponents warning that the economy is slowing in Virginia and hence revenues aren't coming in at the brisk pace of recent years. Delegate James Dillard, a Republican from Fairfax says halting the car tax repeal is the "right and reasonable thing to do." No, James. Keeping your promise to the taxpayers is the right and reasonable thing to do.

Let's set the facts'straight here. You can count on one hand the number of states that have been as flush with cash as Virginia has in recent years. Last year the state had nearly double-digit growth in tax receipts, even .With the c a ~ tax ,phase-od. Last year Gov. Gilmore wasdt exaggerating when he declared: "These aren't good times for Virginia, they're the best of times." The right and reasonable thing to do last year was to devote the fire hose of revenues to fully phase out the car tax immediately. Instead, the money got spent. 4

Last year, according to the new report by the National Association of State Budget Officers, the Virginia general h d . budget rose by - hold on to' your hats,'folks - 10.6 percent. And remember, that's in an era of virtually no inflation. This wasn't a mere spending spree, it was a seven-course budget feast with champagne and caviar at the Rib.

. .. : . Only four state legislatures had a more voracious spending appetite last year than Virginik's. Nor was the spending

,

i ' I

.' I I ! I

I

I

. .

. .

I

I 1 .

. .

. . . . . . . I ", . ! . .

I '

' . . 1'.

. . . .

. . _ .... . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' I . .

.. - . .

. buildup just a one-year abeiTation: Over the past thee years, the Virginia state 'budget has expanded'nearly. 201pqcent.,

Somebody ought io inform the polticos in Richmond that giuttony-is oneaofthe seven.capil.aI.&s;. . . . . ' . I . . . . . . . . . ' . , .:.: ..: g , . . f

The idea Virginia can't find the money to balance the budget and'repeal the.car tax at the s ime& absurd and even ,insulting, The car tax phase-out would deprive the state'of just $300 million in.revenues,'butthe.:state hias a '$900 . " '

million reserve from all the excess taxes we have all bggn sending to Richmond year &eryear.;If.Mr..Gh,ore and the legislature in Richmond could simply hold state expendit$ growth to 4 pkrcent in 200.1, -.;that!s.xtiqre than the:federal budget went up last year - the car tax repeal could proceed,'hd the.budget would remain in,ku@l&. So&hat's, the ' .

problem here? State legislators - Republicans and Democra@ alike - have become so accustoqed :to obese budgets, . '

I I . . . . .

r . . . . . . _ _ . - . . : -_.._ ' . .

. .

. . . - : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . -1 : ' 1 . . . . . . . ,.

. . . . .

. . . I

........ I .

... . . . . . . . . . .

. :I ' . . they can7 fathom dieting on lean-cuisine for once. . .

. . . . . . .

Some of the car tax-repeal opponents say a higher priority should be roads and schoo1s:Thatis~obviously. an *emotionally appealing argument. to suburbanites in Northern Virginia. But again it masks .the fiscal reality 'in . ;

"Richmond. Amxent Virgidia Insitute for Public Policy study shows that. Virginia has been p o d g money into road 0.3 pJ building, smaller class sizes, school construction, and teacher pay raises. "It's a myth that, Virginia . . . undehds schools b,and roads," the report concludes.

.

. . . .

I ,

. .

I

qrNow is the time for Mr. Gilmore to fight for his legacy. The car tax can be ended this year without any new taxes %ithout any draconian cuts in high-priority government programs in Richmond. In the current political F a OVirginia, as in D.C., voters are putting a premium on politicians who keep their word. Republican Delegate Jack Rust p~ of Virginia is ,dead right when he says: "We have to keep the car tax promise." It really is that simple.

I '

It would be a shame if the tax revolt that Republicans rode to victory in '1 997 came back to bite them in 200 1 .' Stephen Moore is an adjunct fellow at the Cat0 Institute and president of @e Club for Growth.

GRAPHIC: Photo, Jim Gilmore

LOAD-DATE: November 29,2000

I

I:

. . .

dReturn to Full. . . .

'LexisN&xisfM Acad.emic . '

* ..

. ' Copyright 2000'NeWs World Comunicatiots; Inc. The Washington Times.

November 24, 2000, Friday, Final Edition

: . ' I \ . . . '

. . . .

.

' SECTION: PART A; COPUIMENTARY; Pg. A26, ' . .

LENGTH: 707 words

" HEADLINE: Advice the GOP could.do withoui' . . I

, I

IN . . ,

I .

0 3 p' BYLJNE: Stephen Moore . '

r~ BODY . .

. .

. .

' I

8 '

. .

I . .

I

I .

. . . . t

At the risk of sounding impolite, Bob Dole is like a bad penny that just.keeps rolling back into the public arena at the 1. I , ef

I . . .

I . ..

1 niostinopportune times. ,

tw On the Sunday morning talk shows this week the four-time failed presidential candidate served up the. single most I It%

atrocious piece of advice imaginable for our presumptive next president, George, W. Bush. When asked by Tign . .

Russert whether Mr. Bush will be forced to move.away fiom the 'kadical" agenda of the right, Mr. Dole said W. would be.we11 advised to !'back off on the tax cut..I wouldnlt want the tax cut to be the first order of business." Well,. what should be the first order of business? Mr. Dole suggested Mr. Bush "reach across the aisle" and push bipartisan legislation on issues like Medicare reform and' prescription drug benefits.

In other words, if Mr. Bush is declared the victor, he should immediately abandon his own agenda and take up AI Gore's. Ingenious. I

What'&ightening is that the Bush insiders just may be listening to this d r e a m advice. If they do, George W. Bush's .- presidency, assuming there is one, will be a colossal failure. How many times do Republicans have to relearn the lesson that when they abandon their conservative/libertarian bloc of voters, they don't expand their base, it evaporates. The political graveyard is full of contemporary examples. Gerald Ford. Papa Bush. And, yes, Bob Dole.

But I'm confident Mr. Bush has the shrewd political instincts to reject the flawed game plan Mr. Dole and manyein the media have pronounced. The Bush dvisers I've talked to say their strategy is to do just the opposite of what Mr. Dole

I

j 1 i ! recommends: to make the tax cut plan the pillar of the legislative program of a George W. Bush administration. Tax

cuts should be sent to the Republican Congress immediately after the Inauguration.

in the House voted for death tax repeal, marriage tax penalty relief, and IRA expansions just a few months ago.

I I

It's absurd for the press to maintain that tax cuts me "radical" and controversial. After all, many moderate Democrats

Moreover, exit polls on Election Day revealed that a slight majority of Americans (53 percent) favored the Bush tax plan. No, that's not a ringing mandate, but it's evidence that across-the-board tax cuts are still politically popular.

i I I 8

1

Mr. Bush's economics team also needs to read the tea leaves: the economy is showing signs of losing steam. The growth rate has been cut in half, fiom 4 percent to 2 percent, over the past six months. It's still the economy, stupid. Tax cuts can and should be promoted to the public as an anti-recession safety net. To put it in the language of his old man, tax cuts mean "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Mr. Bush isn't even in the White House yet and the jackals in the press are already trying to set him up for a fatal fall.

e

.

. . I

. .

. i'

. . . . .

They're calling for Mr. Bush to retreat fiom'his anti-tax platform because the election was so.'close. Nonsense..This. I .' ' isn't the first close or even disputed election in'history. There have been many American. presidents who . . . . _._... su&Ssfully:

'advanced their agenda even though they had smaller percentages of the vote count than. Ciov:..Bush".got. J 6 k F : .

. Kennedy had a slew oflegislative victories (including a tax cut) following ,his narrow and. disiuted eledon of 1960. One of the nation's most successful presidents, Thomas Jefkrson, won a disputed election; This:didtft cause him to .

moderate his stance on the issues. He never retreated from' his core,:convictions that the federal government should .. play a limited role in domestic'affairs and that the states had primacy in OUT federal system. He was resoundingly re-elected.

': QK, want a moreaconternporary example? in 1994 a prominent governor won a narrow victory.,ad then proceeded . . to.

' enact a whirlwind, populist, conservative agenda that ,included tax cuts, toughened education' sbdards, litigation", .. reform, and work-for-welfare requirements. Each of the initiatives had powerful political enemies. Four years later that governor was reelected in one of the greatest landslides in .Texas history. President -George'Wi Bush should use

4 . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*1:,1.

. .

I ._ . .

#I' '

. . .... . . . . . . . . . . , . - . . fir,;

,

' p r l the samewinning strategy that he did as governor. fq .

!Prl .

' .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club For Growth. ' . . ' ' . .

.GRAPHIC: Cartoon, Bob Dole i b. r q I

I Q cy" LOAD-DATE: November 24., 2000 C? Ph

I

1

I I '

I '

. .

. . . . . . . . . . .- . . . .

. .

I ,

I

r

. .

. ' .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . - . . . .

. .

. . I .

. .

. .

. . . ._

I

I

I

... . I

. . I

. . . .

. . . I

. . . . . . - . . .

I ! . 1. :

. . . .

4 Return, to Full . . .

. .

. . _

. LexisN4?xisTM Academic. . . .. '

I .

Copyright 2000'News World Comm)micatiO~s;Inc. . .

' , \ . ' . The Washington Times -

. .

'November 15,2000, Wednesday, FinalEdition . ' .

' . '

. . . '"i

: f I

I i

. 8 ' 8 . . . . . i

SECTION: PART . . A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A17 , . . i ' . .

, . [ ". . .

: . : j " LENGTH 928 words . .

. . ' i .

a .

. I . . . a . . . . . .

. .

'J+ HEADLINE: New investor clasS.in winner's circle . . P4 . .

;I . I

; ! i ' I m pri BYLINE: Stephen Moore, . 8 .

h -i BODY

I qr W h y did Republicans hold Congress despite a huge money blitz by the Democrats and their liberal financing my?

I pic. One big reason is that the 2000 election was the first in history in which a majority of those who went to the voting ~4 booth were owners of stock. And in pulling the lever for Republicans, those members of the new shareholder class in

I America voted their financial interest. They opted for Social Security privatization and po-saving, pro-investment tax cuts because they implicitly understand these policies are good for growth and good for stocks. Just as importantly, investor class voters rejected a Gore-Gephardt campaign premised on the political banner of class warfare and I corporate bashing.

The fact that voters opted against wealth redistribution politics and instead chose the policies of wealth creation tells us a lot about the attitudes of the modern electorate. The vast majority of the 85 million Amdcans who own stocks I are trying to claw their way into the top 1 percent in wealth and income. They are deeply skeptical of political rhetoric

I sp

and policy proposals that 'muld erode the wealth creation process altogether. . ' i I ; \ . . .

1 . The old-school Democratic strategy of appealing to the New Deal generation of seniors" and millions.ofblue-collar unionized voters has worked magic for liberals in many past elections. Why not this one? The answer is that the voter base for nanny'state economics is shrinking:The union vote has changed in-two ways in recent times. First, it's smaller 1. ' than anytimc! before in the last 50 years. The chart shows that a political strategy marketed to the self-interest of the .

new investor class reaches 3. times'as many voters as one targeted to union-headed households. When'Lyndon B.' .

Johnson won his 1andskid.e victory for president in 1964, there were 3 times as 'many union members as investors. In I the 2000 election, there were 3 times as many investors as card-canying,union members. That's a huge demographic Shift.

Second, the union vote now eonsists increasingly of government employees. Today, almost half of AFL-CIO members work for the government. The fact that the AFL-CIO is now dominated by schoolteachers, bus drivers, and othez public employees has moved the union movement sharply to the left, and has simultaneously prevented Democrats from running as Bill Clinton-style New Democrats. Public employee unions won't tolerate school choice, social security choice, free trade, welfare reform, and tax cutting. Al Gore and Richard Gephardt ran away fiom these populist issues, and the centrist voters abandoned them in the millions.

The $30 million to $40 million campaign by AFL-CIO and supplemented with dollars from the war chest of the trial lawyers was intended to wrench control of the House away from the Republicans. It failed because it's core message - that government, rather than individuals should be making critical life choices - is as flat and outdated a 3-day-old Coke left sitting in the sun.

I

1

.

. . / .

. .

I Although the final exit survey results aren't yet availgble, pre-election polls suggested the GOP had an 8 to 10 point lead over the Democrats with investor class voters. Given that the investor class Americans can be located in virtually every demographic categories - age, race, sex, income and religious affiliation - it appears that for the investor class I electorate, pocket book issues, or actually whatmight be called wealth accupdation issues, transcend concerns thit

p o 4 * 'IJ 4

I I ' I:;

6 r-4 'f=f

r i I ' I I' I' I I I I I

the press cares so passionately about, most notably, abortion, education, pres nription drug ben fits, gun control,

\ afhnative action and campaign reform. ' f,

lnvestor class voters are a finicky lot, with no deep-rooted party loyalties. They voted for Bill C1i ton in 1996, because his administration had been bullish for investor portfolios. Now tliat they have re-elected the Republicans in Conbeis, the GOP had better stand and deliver on the pro-growth policies they have promised. The GOP has received a voter mandate for death tax repeal, income tax rate cuts, and private accounts for Social Security. Each of these must be enacted in 100 days. But there's more that a George W. Bush administration must push to keep mutual funds groying in value.

cFirst, the anti-trust witch hunt of the Reno Justice Department should be immediately closed down. Microsoft and Intel must be let1 alone to add value for shareholders.

cSecond, trial lawyers have to be muzzled. They endanger our prosperity by blackmailing private industry. Lawyer fees in cases with government as the plaintiff should be capped at no more than $1,000 an hour. In the tobacco settlement cases, some lawyers were getting $100,000 an hour in fees.

cThird, the capital gains tax cut is conspicuously absent from the Bush tax plan. But the last capital gains tax cut increased federal revenues, caused wealthy tapayers to pay more tax, helped spur an increase in stock values, and corresponded with a huge surge in venture capital funding. That is to say, the class warfare critics were wrong on every count. The correct rate of tax on capital gains is zero, but even a cut fiom 20 percent to 15 percent would have a bullish impact on the economy.

..I

I

* I

. .

All this is to say the new Republican regime must focus all its energies on growth policies'and politics.' Voters took a gamble last Tuesday. Everyday they will be gazing at their stock portfoiio to gage whether that gamble is paying off: . .

I

Stephen Moore is president of the Club,for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cat0 Inqitute.

GRAPHIC: Chart, STOCK OWNERSHIP VERSUS UNION MEMBERSHIP, By The Washington Times . . . .

. . LOAD-DATE: November 15,2000 '

. . .., .

I

I I . .

I

I

1

. . * . : . : , .

. -. . .(Return to Full

I I

I-. . LexisNexisTM Academic a . .. .

'

Copyright 2000 News World. Communications, Inc.' The Washington Times . '

1111" I 1 .

. November 06,2000: Monday, Find Edition Correctioh Appended

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A16

. .

. - - . .

. . . . .

. . . .. . . . .

. .

. _ .

.. . * . .

. . . .

.. ._ . . 1 i u3 LENGTH: 715 words ' . _

. . Pd 03 HEADLINE: Suicidal corporations

... . , I

I I

: .

1 ' BYLINE: Stephen Moore

1 % ~ BODY: V I

v

' F

I

1

. .

I"' 1 ~ 1 Lord knows why Republicans ever raise a finger for big business. Corporate America has to be composed of thel th greatest bunch of ingrates in'political history. In recent years the GOP has given the business groups virtudy cv everything they've asked 'for: GATT, fi-ee trade with China, a capital gains cut, deficit reduction, protection from. I I ' shareholder.suits, and more high tech immigrants.

Now the business groups are repaying the GOP by giving 'about half their.money to 0 Democrats. running for Congress.

I

I

I

The Washington Post reports that ofthe $70 million that business has raised for campaigns this year, $33.7 million has gone to Republican committees and $36.3 is going to the Democrats. (See TabIe.) Are these brain-dead PAC directors listening to what A1 Gore and Dick Gephardt are saying on the campaign trail? Messrs. Gore,, Gephaxlt; and Daschle regularly bash Big Oil, chemical companies (polluters), the pharmaceutical industry, tobacco companies, and high-tech fms. like Microsoft and Intel. Now industry rewards them with a faucet of dollars. This is a case of feeding the mouth that bites you.

A case in point: one prominent business PAC, called BIPAC, is giving money to Kansas Democrat Dennis Moore. Mr. Moore voted against death tax elimination. Meanwhile, the Republican challenger, Phil Kline, is a solid hemarket, anti-tax candidate with a good chance to pick up this seat for the GOP. A tightly contested House seat in California has the Business Roundtable and BIPAC finmeling fimds to the Democrat Cal Dooley, not the pretax cut Republican Rich Rodriguez

By supporting Mr. Moore and Mr. Dooley in these races, BIPAC is helping put the Speaker's gavel in Dick Gephardt's hands. Mr. Gephardt has one of the lowest pro-business ratings on record.

I

The business groups defend themselves by saying: "We need to hedge our bets." That's funny, because the unions and the trial lawyers and the Hollywood gazillionaires don't "hedge their bets." Ninety-five percent of their money goes into the coffers of the Democrats.

. Some Republicans are fhious at the big business betrayal. Pat Toomey, a second-term Republican' in the House who represents Allentown, Pa., one of the most unionized areas in the nation, has been hit hard by AFL-CIO attack ads. Mr. Toomey risked his neck for business by voting for the fiee trade agreement with China and against the minimum wage bill. He wonders why business groups are locking arms with union bosses to help elect a Democratic Congress.

,

. I

I

j . . I

I I

I

. .

Part of the problem is that big business doesn't always support smaller government and free markets. When the Republicans in the House wanted to terminate federg1 funding for the International Monetary Fund back in 1998, BIPAC and the Business Roundtable lobbied a&%st the futlding reductioii. This despite the overwhelming evidence that the IMF is an obstacle to pro-growth policies in poor nations. But the IUF provides a safety net for Fortune 500

* companies doing business overseas, so never mindathe corruption, big business says keep the funds flowing. 4

\

1

' a

Similarly, when some Republicans wanted to cut corporate welfare gra& thr&gh the the business groups retaliated by calling the GOP anti-business. The tmtli is that in,these the business lobby that's anti-fiee enterprise.

The brilliant Wall Street Journal columnist Paul GIgot calls the business PAC community "rope sellers." They provide the rope to the Democrats who will soon tun around and hang their shareholders. There are a few notable exceptions, such as the NFIB and the Small Business Survival Committee, both of which take consistently principled stands on

D"Z, policy issues. Their members don? want anything fiom Congress. They simply want to be left alone. But when it t-4 comes to corporate America, big business and big government seem to be as cozy as ever. Ralph Nader is absolutely

right on this point. I

PlJ ,D44 '

Fd All this is to say corporate'herica has'a suicidal impulse. It aids and abets its,own' worst enemies. Republicans , ~r should stop carrying water for big business. zfthey do, the business'PAC money will start to pour money behind them

.I er like never before. C) . ' '

'l"l Stephen 'Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

.-

. .

I

. .. , . .

i Ph

COIRRECTION-DATE: November 15,2000

CORRECTION: The Nov. 6 column by Stephen Moore titled "Suicidal corporations" should have stated that the Business Round Table gave money to Democrat Dennis Moore m a tight Kansas congressional race against Republican Phil Kline.

GRAPHIC: Chart, BIG BUSINESS POLITICAL GIVING, By The Washington Times

1

LOAD-DATE: Novemba, 6,2000 . .

a

. .

I

. .

1 I i

1 . .

I

I

. .

. .

I

I

? I

. .

I I

-- .I .. ' I

. .

' . * ,: . . . . .'I - .. ' . . . . ,:

. . . .... . .

. - . . . . , ' . .

. .

. . ' -. . _. ' . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. :

. . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . .

. ._I 4Return tg. Full. m:, '

' , ' : 'I.

. . . . . I

'. . ' . F

LexisNexisrMAcademic , . .

. . . . . . ' ; " .

. .

. .

. . .

. .

. . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< '

....

. I

. . . . . . . . . . .. '.I . -' * . . I . .

Copyright 2000 News World Communications, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. 1- . . . . . . .

. _

. . . . , The. Washington Times

October 3 1 , 2000, Tuesday,, Final Edition a .

. . : _ . I . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, .'. , . . . . 4 . . . . . . .

I'C, ; I ' . ~'

. . . . . . . BO!. . . . . . . .

I . . . _ . .

. .- . . . .

'

. LENGTH: 1158 words

SECTION.; PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A18

. _ . .

. . . . . . .

HEADLINE: Adding makes it bigger : . .

cu3 BYLINE: Stephen Moore . . Iru .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

cv

, I I Ph

VJ surplus.^' But Mr. Gore's own federal spending plans and promises are costlier than Mr. Bush's tax cut - by a q AI Gore continues to assault George W. Bush's $1.5 trillion tax cut plan because it' would "spend all the budget

'(3 These new spending proposals ax so enormous tax increases rnight be necessary to keep the budget in balance under a

BODY:

Gore administration. h m

I I" I I I I I I I I I I

1 -

Mr. Gore's c'mpaign proposals - for universal federal preschool funding, drug benefits to seniors, the Kyoto global warming treaty,'anti-smoking programs, expahded Medicaid health coverage, and the like - would add $1.6 trillion to the federal budget over the next 10 years. And the price tag for his new entitlement programs could mushroom to I

about twice that mount in the decade after that. Gov. Bush is right: no Democratic presidential c-andidate in the last 30 years - not Michael Dukalds, Walter Mondale or even George McGovern - contemplated such a high-priced menu of.new federal initiatives. In fact, the cost of Mr. Gore's spending schemes exceeds those of Ralph Nader's Green party*

1 have scoured through all of the spending proposals presented on the Gore 2000 web site or in the latest Clinton-Gore budget proposal presented to Congress. I have added to that the taxpayers' tab for a l l the special interest campaign trail promises AI Gore has made over the past several months. As the table shows, the biggest-ticket items are new entitlement programs. For example, Mr. Gore's gold-plated prescription drug benefit program for seniors would cost $432 billion. His "Retirement Savings Plus plan" would dole out another $200 billion in tax dollars to low~incorne workers - many of whom cannot afford to save on their own because of the 15 percent Social Security tax. Expanding government health coverage to uninsured families would, conservatively estimated, cost $146 billion. His plan to provide free or subsidized preschool for 3- and 4-year-ofds carries a $1 IS billion price.

Mr. Gore's blueprint also envisions beefing up the budgets of most of the federal regulatory agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the civil rights and antitrust snoops at the Justice Department. He wants $1 6 billion for teacher pay raises; a $200 million anti-smoking initiative (it is the least he can do; after all, his sister died at the hands of the evil tobacco companies), $45 million for curtailing violence at abortion clinics, $2 billion to combat urban sprawl, several hundred million to develop solar energy and other alternatives to fossil fbels, $2 billion for a "livable cities" plan, at least $1 billion more for . researching global climate change, and the ultimate in political correctness: a new Labor Department program to "train

I

women for high-tech jobs (no price tag listed)."

The precise total comes to $1.64 trillion of new spending through 2010, or almost $15,000 for every household in .

America. Note: This does not include the $500 billion of targeted tax cawe-outs for 1970s-type initiatives such as "a tax credit to consumen for the purchase of more fuel-efficient cars and SWs," "1ifetime.lekning tax credits," and

1

. . . I

. ': I . .

. .

. .

I I

-...

. . I

building energy-conserving homes.

What is perhaps even more astonishing than the bfizzqd of new programs endorsed by A1 Gore is that he has suggested virtually no offsetting budget cuts. All this new spending would be'paid for by squandering the expected tax surpluses. Out of the several thousand federal programs in the 1,600-page federal budget, Al Gore, the man who invented reinventing government, hasn't yet identified a single one in his presi entia1 campai terminated. (Alas, neither has Mr. Bush.)

In the presidential debates and on the campaign trail, Mr. Gore has cultivated a fiscally moderate ' age. But this is simply the vice president reinventing himself The truth is that fiom the moment he first entered Congress more thanD 20 years ago, Mr. Gore has been a relentless advocate of nanny-state government expansionism. In 1989 and 1990, Mr. Gore won the National Taxpayers Union award for the biggest spender on Capitol Hill, on both occasions nudging out Ted Kennedy for this dubious honor. In 1 1 of 13 years, Mr. Gore received the lowest possible NTU grade h m

(4#b 'I$ 4'

'

that should be a I

,.I rDh NTU on taxpayer issues.

Nor is there much hope Mr. Gore's running mate will push him in a less taxpayer-hostile direction. NTU reports that 'q 8% Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, votes with taxpayers just 6 percent of the time, rating him a lifetime IF pd grade as well. Mr. Gore still aows about voting against the Reagan t? cuts in 1981 - even 35 million jobs and 10,000

points on the Dow Jones later. The joint Tax Committee recently announced'that if it were not for the Reagan tax cuts, the average income family today would be paying some $6,000 a year more in taxes.

If enacted. AI Gore's new generation of federal welfare state entitlement programs would-be ticking kscal time bombs with costs that would explode over the next decade, just when Baby Boomers are set to retire and the budget is

I

P+l I

c> I

h h

PI4

expected to go back into deficit on its own. Mr. Gore's audacious $1.5 trillion agenda to'nationalize day cme, health care, education, crime fighting, transportation policy, health care, zoning and traffic patterns are brilliantly softened with conservative rhetoric about advancing "fiscal responsibility."

A1 Gore is not so much a man who wants to reinvent government, as he is a man who wants to relegitimize it. His proposed blitz of new spending is more expensive than any other presidential candidate has sought since Lyndon Johnson unveiled the Great Society.

And just when we thought the era of big government was over.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a fellow at the Cat0 Institute. I

GORE'S TRILLION-DOLLAR SPENDING SCHEME

PROGRAM 10-YEAR ESTIMATED DESCRlPTlON COST (IN BILLIONS)

Social Security Plus Accounts = $360

Prescription drug benefit far seniors* = 224

Social Security for widows = 150 '

Federal health insurance for children = 146

Military pay increase = 135

. .

. .

.. .

1

'. I

I

D

. .'

1

!: * !

"Five Point Education" plan = 3 15

I 1 .

. . I ' . .

I I I'

. . .

Pollution reduction incentives = 68 I

I I

. . I, ;.

. ' Universal preschool = SO . . : .

. . . , .

21st century research fund = 21

Foreign aid, expansions = 19 I 1' . barinsafetynet= 1 1 . '

.. ' .. . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . ,

. . . . ... I .

Public transit subsidies = 10 . . I,

I

vi Increase cancer research budget** = 9 W ' 1; Day care subsidies = 7 p-1'

q After school programs = 6 q . q '

0 Federal land purchases = 6 . Ph.

' I

I

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . , . I , '

I

. .

_ . . . . . .

I .

t*cl I ' , Increased rebatory enforcement = 6 I

MedicaidS-chip = 6

I Energy conservation = 5

I

I

I Kyoto Treaty compliance = 5 I:

. . . . . Brownfields redevelopment = 4 . . , . . .

. . . . 1' Rent subsidies 1 4 . ' .

Anti-urban sprawl programs = 2 I . Equal pay initiatives = 1

I Total ='$1,602 I

* Based on estimates in Clinton administration's FY 2001 budget

** This is a five-year program

GRAPHIC: Chart, GORE'S TRILLION-DOLLAR SPENDING SCHEME, By The Washington Times ; Cartoon, I INVENTED A WAY TO MAKE ALL THESE DELICACTES SO THEY WOULD NOT MAKE GOVERNMENT BIGGER!, By Mike Shelton/The Orange County Register (2000)

I

I I

LOAD-DATE: October 3 1,2000

. . . .

I

I I

. . .

' I

I 4Return t o Full

LexisNexisTM Academic , . ..

1*{.,kb!hJ f

. Copyright 2000 ,N,ews World Comunietions, Inc. The WashingtonTimes . \

. . * . \ . ' .

October 20,2000, Friday, Final. Edition

SECTION: PART 4 COMMENTARY; Pg. A19

LENGTH: 836 words

HEADLTNE: Not a do-nbthing Congress

BYLINE: Stephen Moore '

BODY:

.,..,,

I

. : . .

I .

I

'

. . ' 0 # .

. .

With Congress finally set to adjourn, the Washington pundits are blasting the "do-nothing" Republican Congress. Wall Street Journal writer A1 Hunt recently wrote a scathing column on the GOP's legislative record, titled: "The Sorry 106th." Mr. Hunt seethes that ''this has been one of the pettiest, most irrelevant #sessions @ll of cheap shots and expensive pet projects while brushing aside big issues."

I

What the press is missing in all this is that in,this sizzling economy there's a lot to be' said for do-nothingism and. '

gridlock, "When you're in the groove economically," says economist Arthur Laffer, "you want to stay in the groove. The Less Congress does, the better." Ray Keating of the Small Business Survival Committee has shown that, over the past 20'years or so, the economy tends to do better the fewer laws Congress passes.

'

I .

Economist J i m Bianco of Arbor Trading Co. has looked at the evidence over the past several decades and he documents that the stock market perfoms more than twice as well when the Congress is out of session - and isn't regulathg, taxing, spending or engaging in other meddlesome activities that erase wealth.

-

4 ' In Washington, "do-nothingism" is defined as refusing to pass the Democratic legislative wish list. So the %lure to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit., campaign finance "refonn" legislation, a health care bill of rights (really l'the trial lawyers' bill of rights" ) a minimum wage increase, and day care subsidies is disparaged as a sign of the GOP Congress' ineffectiveness. A strong case can be made that the greatest virtue of the Republican Congress over the past six years h i been its judicious inaction on Bill Clinton's most economically destructive ideas - notwithstanding,the unsightly election-eve spending spree that fhded many of Bill Clinton's budgetary priorities.

But the charge.that the Republicans m Congress have done nothing productive this year is contradicted by examining . their legislative track record. The Republicans in the House and Senate have passed a slate of impressive and pro-growth bills this year, despite their razor-thii five-seat majority. Here's a list of the accomplishments:

. .

(5 ) Repeal ofthe Social Security earnings test imposed against seniors who continue to work after they reach the age of 65.

( 5 ) Phaseout of the unfair death tax over 10 years.

( 5 ) Passage of the free trade agreement with China.

( 5 ) Marriage penalty elimination.

I I

. . I '

, . . . .. ._

I I

I . I

. (5) Sunsetting the IRS tax code.

- . . .. . . (5) Telephone ta-- repeal. . .

( 5 ) Banking.reform. ' ' ,

c! :. .. .

. .I

. . I

. . . .

b.8,. I I . ( 5 ) The largest budget surplus in American history.

That's a lot, of activity for a "do-nothing Congress." Norikof this is regarded as of much consequence to the national ,media, because most of those in the chattering class don't ,#favor, these changes. It's a very peculiar double-standard in

"do-nothingism," but passage of a bill to. eliminate the death tax, the most despised and unfair levy in the entire IRS code, is greeted with a ho-hum.

,I' '

. Washington that failure to enact a new multibillion-dollar' entitlement for. Medicare is denounced as a sign of .

pi4 . .

.

Bill Clinton, of course, vetoed the death tax and marriage penalty relief. Where are the howls of protest fiom the media about White House obstructionism?

Republicans can and should run on their record of accomplishment. Despite the recent doldrums in the stock m ket, the Dow-Jones has nearly tripled fiom 3,600 to 10,500 since November 1994 when the GOP seized control of th houses. Interest rates have fallen by more than 100 basis points since then. More than half a trillion of national 3 ebt has been erased. In six years the GOP has cut the capital gains tax, approved two-major h e trade agreements, reformed welfare, balanced the budget and brought government spending down fiom 22 percent to 20 percent of gross domestic pioduct.

If Republicans'hold on to Congress and win the White House in November, they will almost certainly abolish the death tax, cut income tax rates, begin the process of converting Social Security into a system of private retirement ,

accounts, and expand school choice options for tens of thousands of families across the nation. All those initiatives could have enormously positive effects on the American economy. This stands m stark contrast k Al Gore's own activist agenda - the Kyoto treaty, the Microsoft antitrust case, a carte-blanche for trial lawyers to skim the cream off every successful industry, and at least three new social welfare entitlements - which codd hardly be more economically wrong-directional.

Alas, Al hunt is right about one thing: There has been a pork fest on Capitol Hill of late. My dreary prediction is that federal spending may actually rise faster if Republicans control the White House and Congress than it has under the Clinton years.

I

. I

I

In fact, if there is any complaint about the Republicans in Congress, it is not that they did nothing. It is that they did too much.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. I

GRAPHIC: Photo, NO CAPTION, By Damon Scheleur/Special to The Washington Times

LOAD-DATE: October 20,2000

I

Lex.isyexisTM .Academ'ic ' .

. .' I .

pW* !IJ . . .

Copyright 20QO..News World Communications, Iiic. . I , '

' I 1 .

. . . .

. .

m m , \ . * . ; .:. ' ; m.: , . , ,

The Washington Times; . \ . . ' , \ .

. . October 1 2,' 3,000, .Thursday,. Final Editipn 1:. . '

I . .

. .

. SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1'6

LENGTH: 722 words

HEADLINE: 'Don't mess Wiih. Texas'. ' ' '

. . . ' .

: .

, . S I . . . . . I., i I

.t f l . .

I I I I I I I I I I

I . . 0 3 BYLINE: Stephen Moore

I' 4 BODY: gr In recent days, the panicked Gore campaign has been firing rhetorical Scud missiles at George W. Bush's record in %r Texas. The latest screed fiom the Gore campaign blasts George W. Bush for being a fiscally reckless governor, Mr. 0 Bush has llspent the surplus in Texas on budget busting tax cuts," charges the vice president. Mr. GoKe also alleges that Fc the one-time $G billion budget surplus in Texas is "rolling away like tumbleweeds." He has also lambasted the Texas I 1" governor for allowing the schools to crumble in Texas due to financial neglect.

I

So what is the real fiscal record of George W. Bush as governor? My research indicates that Mr. Bush has racked up a solid, if not spectacular, fiscal and economic record in Texas. Although the budget has ballooned by about 40 percent to $100 billion since he became governor in 1995, this has been a pace below personal income growth in the state. The U.S. economy has done well since 1994 - the Tex& economy has performed even better. Under Mr. Bush the Texas economy has ranked well above average in population and income growth. So, yes, the budget has grown a lot - too much, in fact - but the economy has grown even faster.

The q r e campaign is right about one thing: the tax burden has come down under Gov. Bush. In 1993 Mr. Bush signed a $1 billion property tax cut instead. Then last year he impressively pushed through another $1.7 billion property and sales tax reduction - the biggest in Texas history.

On the Cato,Institute fiscal policy report card of the governors Gov. Bush received the grade of a B and the 4th best score of 46 governors examined. He came to Austin promising tax cuts, budget control (his predecessor Ann Richards was the biggest spending governor in Texas history), tort reform and a more pro-business regulatory climate. More or less, he kept all of those promises.

If there's a blemish on Mr. Bush's record it is his eagerness to h w money at the schools in order to pacim the education lobby. In last year's budget deal, Mr. Bush shoveled a record $2.1 billion of new money into the Texas schools, and then called himself "the education governor." Feeding the education blob is hardly education reform. Unfortunately, on the presidential carnpaign trail, Mr. Bush has shown the same propensity to show commitment to fixing our mediocre schools by fattening the budgets of the education blob and expanding the intrusive federal role. ,

Both are bad ideas doomed to failure.

Mr. Bush also needs to reestablish his fiscd conservative credentials by pin-pointing federal programs that his administration would e b b a t e . There are hundreds of wastefbl and obsolete federal programs in the $1.8 trillion federal budget. But so far the Bush team has failed to identify even a single program the governor would terminate. Mr. Bush even evicted from the 2000 Republican platform any specific mention of specific program eliminations - such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Legal Services Corporation and the Department of Education.

I

-

I

1

b

!

I . . . I

I

' i I

1

. .

. I

. .

I.

I I . . . 1 . '

... (I) . . . --

I .

. .

. .

. _ . .

I , ' . . Nonetheless, fiom a taxpayer standpoint Mr. Bush's fiscal record is sterling compared to that of A1 Gore. Duiingghis . tenure in Congress Mr. Gore was ranked .at or near the bottom of the National Taxpayers Union ranking-'evep year. . . In

Mr. Gore's mudslinging at Mr. Bush for unbalancing the budget say+. more about the .vice president's arithmetic skills' than it does, the governor's fiscal record. The latest state comptroller report indicates a $I billion-plus'budget surplus in Texas, not a deficit. In fact, Mr. Bush has produc&h sqpluS.6 years in a row. . .

. '; ,ciov. Bush has countered Mr. Gore's attacks by warning: "r)on't mess with Texas." He has also'lobbed a'grenade back at the Democrats: ''If A1 Gore suggests a state with a surplus shouldn't..cut, taxes,, then how can the American people-, count on A1 Gore to cut taxes when our nation has a surplus?" Good question. The big fiscal di'fference.between Messrs. Bush and Gore is that for 8,yearS Bill Clinton and A1"Gore have promised middle class tax cuts, while Mr.'

1989 and 1990 he wasthe biggest .tax and spender in the entire United States Senate. . '- ,j . ' ' . . .

. . I . . . . N, . '

'

. : i . I

, . . -

. i i

' . ! I . . . .

. . . . . PI' Bush has actually delivered them. . . I

. . I "' Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a fellow at the Cat0 Institute. '

i ' i t'+d _ .

. . I It; ~4 GRAPHIC: Cartoon, ALL I S A I D WAS, TEXAS'. . . NOT TAXES., By Gary Mkk SteinMilwaukee Journal ,. I -

1 : V Sentinel (Copley News Servibe) ; Chart, TEXAS OUTPERFORMS NATION, By The Washington Times I sr I h E3 LOAD-DATE: October 12,:2000

I

. . . .

I

I . . .

I

I

. : . .

r

. .

I

. .; . . :

LexisNexis'" Academic

Copyright 2000 News World Communications, Inc.

. . . . p&.:,J !l*

\ I IThe Washington Times ' '

. . October 05,2000, Thursday, Find Edibon .

I .

' SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg . A 14 .

LENGTH: ,849 words . .

. .

. .

HEADLINE: lmmigratipn as,a fqieign asset ..I, . .

BYLINE: Stephen Moore I

, . .

BODY:

\.,, . I '

In the final weeks of the 106th Congress, Republicans on Capitol Hill have an opportunity to pass an immigration bill that would have a substantially positive impact on the U.S. economy.

By combining an increase in visas for high-tech workers with a more generous legalization program for many Central Americans already here, the immigration bill would be shrewd politics too, potentially steering many Latino voters in to the Republican camp. 1

The economic case for the immigration bill are almost beyond dispute. It turns out that one of the biggest impediments to continued prosperity is not a scarcity of oil, but a scarcity of talented and hard-working people. Everywhere I travel, the single most persistent complaint I hear fiom employers is the need for more workers. Charles Hilton, the owner of six hotels in Panama City, Florida tells me that "we couldn't keep our hotels open if it weren't for immigrants. We still need a lot more."

The labor shortage problem is not a myth made up by greedy employers. Silicon Valley desperately needs more computer technicians, physicists, mathematicians and electrical engineers.

. .

A 1999 study by the Joint Venture in California, estimates that the acute shortage of workers in Silicon Valley costs employers about $3 billion a year.

Meanwhile, in the fast booming Southwest, construction companies cannot fill $12 to $15 an hour jobs. Service' industxies across the nation complain that they can't fmd nurses, kitchen help, waiters and waitresses, clerks, maids, home care workers, and auto mechanics.

Anti-immigrant groups, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), are trying to spook the public with stories of Americans losing good jobs if more immigrants gain visas. But years of economic research can't - detect much of an impact of immigrants on unemployment or wages for Americans. In some localized markets and in some industries - the taxicab market in D.C., for example - immigrants do displace Americans. But the flexibility of our labor markets allow fairly rapid adjustments, allowing a person displaced from one job, to quickly snatch up 9

another. Consider this awesome statistic: Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has admitted about 15 million new immigrants. But over that period, the unemployment rate has fallen by almost half.

1

I

1

b

If anyone thinks closing. the.#gates to immigrants is a good .way to protect jobs, take a good look at Europe. Many European nations have become more nativist in recent years, closing their doors to foreign workers. Guess what? These nations typically have unemp1oyment.rates twice as high as ours.

. .

I

. .

I

s

. I

. .

I '

... *. t.,

. .

.. . . . .

I '

.' . . c, ._. . . ' I ' . . . . . . . ,

. . . . . . > . . I , . a Immigrants aren't just doing the grunt work. They also provide technical skills needed in our cutting edge * . . . . .. '..

high-te,chnology . . industries,-as well; As many, as 1 in every 4 workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born::I once asked a personnel manager at Hewlett-Packard what would happen if Congress cl.osed the golden gates to new hdigrants . "It would bring our seiniconductor industry to its knees," he answered without hesitation. In this age of global competition for brain power and talent, we need as many talented foreigners . - as we can get. '

So here's what Congress should do. First, double thC'riumber of so-calegl HlB visas for immigrants wih special technical skills that are unavailable in the U.S. labor fox&{, Sen. Spencer Abrqham, Michigan Republican, has been pushing fof more high-skilled immigrants and he is right. "What's the sense of teaching foreigners in American

' universities and then not allowing them to work here aft&" we've subsidized their education," he notes. Good question.

Next, we need to start accelerating the citizenship process for many of the immigrants already here. The backlog for U.S. citizen applications now is approaching the 2 million mark. Congress should be encouraging citizenship, not creating every conceivable roadblock to it. Sometimes it seems the INS is a less friendly federal agency than the IRS.

Finally, there are several hundred thousand Central Americans and Eastern Europeans, who long ago fled their war-ravaged countries and sought freedom here. Many of these refugees have been in 'the U.S. for as many as 20 years working, contributing, and staying out of trouble. But they still haven't gained the legal protections they deserv . They are, for all intents are purposes, Americans, but without the proper paperwork. Republicans could build up a lo 1 of good will with Latinos and other ethnic groups, if they displayed some compassionate conservatism and allowed these Americans in name only to become full-fledged citizens.

Congress can and should get all this done this year. With these changes: we can allow several million aspiring Americans to filfill their life long dreams. Moreover, we can ensure the immigrantsto the U.S. over the next 20 years will be the most talented people ever to come to these shores. That's a pro,ven fomula for national greatness. And it could help the GOP win elections too.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

I

'

'

1

r

GRAPHIC:. Chart, AMERICANS IN WAITING, By The Washington Times . :. . . . ._ . . . .

. . . .

LOAD-DATE: October5,2000

. . :. I I

. .

. . . .

I

. .

I

1 .

I

I

I I I '

. .

_...

4Rsturn to Full ' 1 -

. .

. .

I ' . LexisNexisTM Academic

I .

' Copyright 200Q ,N,ews World Communications, Inc.

' . September 27,2000, Wednesday, i i i a i J i t i on , '

The Washington Tiines \ . .

I

SECTION: PART. A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1 6 . .

, .

LENGTH: 878 words

HEADLINE: World Bank poverty fog , I .

r o q3 BYLINE: Stephen Moore

1:: BODY: F"'I

.CY The World Bank's new report on global poverty is choc : full of precise . .

. .

. I

' I .

. .

I

' i ,

I I I I. I' I I I I I

y the kind of wrongheaded economic i hking

CJ "the extraordinarily uneven" gains fiom global capitalism as evidence the Bank* is hopelessly l e f l - l eng and infested b. with politically correct scholars who haven't the slightest clue about how to help nations create wealth and prosperity.

The Bank is a deterrent to economic progress and the U.S. does a great disservice to the world's poor by continuing to

that the Bank has become so. (in)famous for. Congressional Republicans should seize upon-this most recent study on

fimd it. . .

What is creating all the fuss over this report is its boneheaded conclusion that global capitalism is failing to pull the poor out of poverty. This is a strange conclusion indeed, given that the trend away from command and control economies and toward free markets is lifting living standards almost everywhere around the world (outside of Afiica). How could the Bank disregard all evidence of material progress and conclude that world poverty is a bigger problem today than 10 to 20 years ago? Because it uses a new elastic definition of "poverty." According to the gobbledy-gook- in the report, poverty is not just a lack of money, but "powerlessness, voicelessness, vulnerability and fear." Heck, by this derition we could all be in poverty.

The report's conclusions from the faulty findings are even more off target. The Bank's chief economist'says "global capitalism is failing the world's poor." Therefore, what is needed is a bigger government sector in health care, greater political rights for women and even affirmative action for the poor and minorities. The key to conquering poverty says the report is'to give more political power to the poor. No, the author wasn't Che Guevera, but there are so many ,

sophisms in this report that it sure sounds like him bellowing &om the grave.

-

Some of the report's conclusions are simply factually inaccurate. For example, the Bank says the world's poor are getting poorer and that they are more vulnerable to disease. Dead wrong on both counts. In Eact, worldwide per capita living standards have more than doubled since 1960. The world's two most populated nations, China and India, have recorded stunning progress in living standards over the past quarter-century. How? By privatizing state owned enterprises, moving toward free market policies and establishing private property rights in agriculture, by cutting the government sector, and by chopping confiscatory tax rates.

The past 30 years has witnessed the greatest era of global prosperity in world history, and the Bank completely buries the lead, by emphasizing "income gaps" rather than "income gains." Globalization has been a big component of the success story. International trade is bringing new and higher-paying jobs to poorer nations where historically jobs at livable wages outside of agnculture have been scarce to nonexistent.

I

1

,

As for health care, the progress here has been even more thunderous.. The infant mortality rates in developing . '

. . I . .

I

. .

. .

I

I I . .

I . ' , .

' . . mR . . _

. 1'.

. . I

. .

countries have been cut by more than half,&st since 1970 in most non-African third world nations. Life expectancies

'nutrition; sanitation and'basic health care; The world's inhabitants are less'vulnerable to disease today &in . $ .ever before I . ' have soared e+en in the poorest countries like Bangladesh and India. This is mostly due to incredible gains in' . ' .

. . . . .. . . . .: . -

. . . . in humanhistory. I I . .. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

Just about the only place on Earth where economic'and health progress-has not occurred has"b&nAfXw. But the . . '

failing African nations tend to'be the least connected to the forces of globalization. Global capitalism ispot the cause of the horrible epidemic of death and economic back2j;ding in Africa.. Cilol&d capitalism appears to be these nations

. The'World Bank hasn't a clue to as to whatcauses countries to.get rich. It's not really very complicatedl A recent '.. ._, :

. .

. . . . . . 0.). , , '

only possib1,e salvation. , . ': I I,!.

. . . . . .

Heritage Foundation'report shows that nations that have the most economic fieedom have the most economic progress. Nations that are the most economically free have per capita incomes that are roughly 10 times higher than

CV those that are not free. Phil Harvey of DKT International and I recently used the Heritage index on economic fiekdom IM" and discovered that nations that have the most open and free economies have life expectancies for their citizens hat $9 are 20 years longer than for residents of the most unfiee nations. This may be h a d for the World Bank bureaucrats to rub comprehend, but economic freedom (Le. capitalism) really is the panacea to better health and greater wealth. p+.14.

9' M e r reading through this most recent report, it is hard not to sympathize with those leftwing protesters who ral ed in .

E? There's no evidence the billions of dollars of development hid over the past couple of decades has done much good,

'

fiont of the World Bank and IMF buildings last Spring in D.C. They were right: These institutions are danger0 J. . . . . . P -I

, p d and'the ''fiee" economic advice it offers is even worse. . .

I

I *

One sure way to advance world economic prosperity is to stop United States government funding of the World Bank.

Stephen Moore is an adjunct fellow at the Cat0 institute and president of the Club for Growth.

I

. I

GRAPHIC: cartoon, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ; chart, FREE COUNTRIES ARE WEALTHIER AND 1:

HEALTHIER, By The Washington Times

LOAD-DATE: September 27,2000 . .

. . . .

I

. .

, ' . 9

....

4Returti to Full . . .

.Le)&.tSJexisTM Academic, ' .

I .

.Copyright 2 0 0 0 N e ~ s World Cormnunidations , Inc . Insight on'the'News' , ' 1 '

;, \ . .

September 18,2000, Monday ' I i

SECTION: FAIR COMMENT; Pg. 44 . .

LENGTH: 7 I9 words

(In HEADLINE: Texas Economy Boomed Under Bush's Policies . . . I .

. I BYLINE: Stephen Moore' I . PJ P I . ' . .

r-4 BODY: . .

. . ,

. .

. I

. . ' I I . . '

Gt The latest screed fiom the AI Gore campaign blasts George W. Bush'for being a fiscally reckless governor. Bush has 'q "spent the surplus in Texas on budget busting tax cuts," charges the vice president. Gore also alleges that the onetime C3 $6 billion budget surplus in Texas is "rolling away like tumbleweeds." In his s$eech at the Democratic National t;c. Pd Convention, Gore claimed that schools are crumb'ling in Texas due to fiscal neglect.

So what is the real fiscal record of Bush as gdvemor? My research indicates that' Bush h'as racked up a solid, if not spectacular, fiscal and economic record in Texas. Although the budget has ballooned by about 40 percent to $100 billion since he became governor in 1995, this has been a pace below personal-income growth in the state. The U.S. economy has done well since 1994 and the Texas economy has performed even better. Under Bush the Texas economy has ranked well a b v e average in population and income growth. So, yes, the budget has grown a lot - too much, in fact - but the econ'omy has grown even fkster.

The Gore campaign is right about one thing: The tax burden has come down under Bush. In 1993 Bush crafted a complibated tax-restructuring scheme that proved to be hugely unpopular with small businessmen, who saw the plan as a back-door tax hike aimed at them. The plan became a political hot potato, so Bush wisely abandoned it in favor of a $1 billion general property tax cut instead. Then last year Bush impressively pushed through another'$l.7 billion property and sales tax cut.

On the Cat0 Institute fiscal-policy report card of the governors, Bush received the grade of "B" and the fourth best score of 46 governors examined. Hemane to Austin promising tax cuts, budget control (his predecessor, Ann Richards, was the biggest-spending governor in Texas history), tort reform and a more pro-busiriess regulatory climate. More or less, he kept all of those promises. If there's a blemish on Bush's record, it is his eagerness to throw money at the schools in order to pacify the education lobby. In last year's budget deal, Bush shoveled a record $2.1 billion of new money into the Texas schools and then called himself "the education governor.'' Feeding the education blob is hardly education reform. Unfortunately, on the presidential campaign trail, Bush has shown the same propensity to show commitment to fUring OUT mediocre schools by fattening the budgets of the education blob and expanding the intrusive federal role. Both are bad ideas doomed to failure.

Bush also needs to reestablish his fiscal-conservative credentials by pinpointing federal programs that his administration would eliminate. There are hundreds of wasteful and obsolete federal programs in the $1.8 trillion federal budget.. But so far the Bush team has failed to identify even a single program the govpor would texminate. Bush even evicted from the 2000 Republican platform any mention of specific program eliminations, such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Legal Services Corporation and the Department of Education.

-

L

t

I

e

I

I

I

. .

. I

I

I

. .

. . . .@ . .

. . I'

Nonetheless, from a taxpayer standpoint Bush's fiscal record .is &e&& compared. to that of Gore.' During his tenure in ' Congress, Gore was ranked at or near the bottom of the National Taxpayers Union ranking -every year:. In 1989 afld

Gore's mudslinging at Bush for unbalancing the budget says more about &e vice president's ii$l~~~ietic skills than it does the governor's fiscal record. The latest state comptroller teport indicates a $1 billion-plus, budget surplus in

.. . . -. - . .

' r ' 1990.hc+.was the biggest tax-and-spender. in the entire Senate. :. . .

. - ' I

.. . . . .

. I . . Texas, not a deficit. hi fact, Bush has produced a surplus six years in a row. ' ' . '

L.l.,l.

Bush has cotuitered Gore's attacks by waking: "Don't mc& with Texas." He also has 1obbed.a grenade back at the ,Democrats: "If AI Gore suggests a state with a surplus shotddn't cut taxes, then how can the American people count on A1 Gore to cut taxes when our nation has a surplus?" Gooh question. The big fiscal difference between Bush and Gore is that for eight years Bill Clinton and A1 Gore have promised middle-class tax cuts, while Bush actually has delivered them.

. . , CTe . .. ,

Kr Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a fellow at the Cat0 Institute in Washington. WJ

I

GRAPHIC: Illustration (color), NO CAPTION, By Lurie/Cartoonews International Syndicate, NYC, U.S.A. rv lk

LOAD-DATE: September 1'8,2000 ... .

I ,

. . . . I . . . .

. .:

. . .

. .

I

' I

. .

' 1

. .

I

. I

. ..

' : ' I

' .

' I

. . . .

-1 .

. .

LexisNexisTM Academie . . rQ*.*.:J , 4'

. .

. Copyright 2000 News World Communications, Inc.

, neptewber 10,20OO,'Suliday, Final E.dit on

. I . .

I

%e Wasengton T ines ' \ ! z. ' ,

. .

. . SmCTIOw PART€) COMMENTWRY Pg B1

LENGTH: 997 words

HErnLINE Avoiding a budget traui wreck

' '

. .

. .

, . I , ' 4 I

. . . qr

N BYLINE: Stephmn Moore'

i h BODY:

. .

. .

. . . .

. 1 '

. .

' e .

: , .

I . . . . . .

House Republicans recently anounced that when it'comes to the upcoming budget negotiations wth the m f e House, they are willing to meet Bill Clinton "more than half way." GOP leaders are so tewified of another government 8'

a shutdonn that no mile House spending demand will be rernmsed no mmer how fiscally reckless Ps. PJ Sound familiar? This was the same blunderous negotiating tactic that nearly cost Republicans the House in November

1998. In those midterm elections, the Republi,cans' predicted 20-30 seat pick up in the House melted away into losses. Why? The anti-big goveFent agenda was abandoned and conservatwe'voters stayed home

Republican leaders have already begun to capiurrate to the Clinton leftist agenda The minimum wage will be raised for almost no meanin@ concessions on the part of the 7emocrats .There ii also talk of pre empbire pohtrcal sender on a lousy and costly health care l%lT of rights agenda that wlll mostly benefit tnal lawyers and wilI only add to the cost of medical care in the United States. Expect beefy increases in the budgets for the National Endo-ment for the tts the Legal Servicbs Corp Goals 2000 md the Education Departmet Even the Internal Revenue S e m e e is slated for a big budget boost. The House leadership noE says they are wohbd about the adverse polihcal ramificktions of failing to enact a prescription Ng benefit So Ae may get a neS multibillion h l l a r erxbtlernent on Election Eve as well.

.

,

What's going on here? There's certainly a strong case for closing down congressional business as quicDy as possible in the weeks R a d .A short session would @Le incumbent hepublicans plenty of bme.to go back to their dimbts and campaign. But. if they give away the store this fall, the question becomes: Campaign on what* Republc.ans, cah: t fun' this November if Artey seem to favor of buying voters a Volkswagen when the 'Democrats want the pub'lic .to have a druexus

h o s t one-half trillion dollars has been larded onto the budget since the Republican "Contract with America" days. Bill Clinton and AI Gore have instigated most of this spArtin government spendmg Yet over the past three years '

Republicans have actually spent some $25 billion more on social programs than the White Housd originally requested; this year Congress may outspend the Clinton-Gore team yet again. V fact, a just released study by my colleague Steve Slivinski and me, finds that the 106th Congress is on pace to raise social spending by more money in real tenns than '

any Congress since the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter occupied the Oval Ofice. .

Back in 1995, Republicans vowed to end the kinds of counterproductive social programs that have been rotting in the budget -in some cases for d h d e s . Back then the klture lifespff of the National Endo-ment for the fbs eAucatiOn dmding the school lunch program, and Ttul shows likd' Sesame Stre& on public broadcaslmg seemed senoely m . doubt. But not only have almost all of these programs beeAD'issued a new lease on llfe most are prospewhg as never

I . . I . : . ' .

' ...*#

. .

I .

. .

, . .

. .

. . . before.. Since 1996 not a single federal progMlm of any fiscal consequence has actually been elipinated; Not one.

The Education Department.budget'has soared by ;more than 35 :percent since 1996. That's the.biggeit.foarhyear . . ' .. . I

, increase in the department since Jimmy Carter. created it as a favor to,the'teachers' unions .. .Itkill grow:by an6ther 5-10 percent this year. Not only 'that, Republicans now list funding.of education programs beyond.. even Bill Clinton's requests as one of their '!accomplishments."

The federal govenunent has, become a, cluttered close't'^fill, pf obsolete agepcies started in the:New Deal ' h d the Great .'

Society but never tossed away. The.voters need to be rexdqied of all .the inept ways that ,Washington ig,spending their , .

rponey. One'of the few GOP stars here. is Rep. Pete Hoeksga, Michigan Republican, who' publishes a.monthly Tale of " ' Bureaucracy with easily digestible horror stories of how Washington is. misspending our tax .doll&. Mr. .Hoekstra's .

. .reports show that most federal agencies cannot pass a'simply audit'- a requirement for allpivate'firms -&d that : -' '

Pd qr Republicans .should not-retreat from the budget battlefield. They should fight Bill Clinton, AI Gore:and Dick. Gephardt '

6f3 on the budget over every extra dollar they want'to spend; We're approaching a $2 trillion-federal budget. How much'is '' enough? Republicans can't win in November if they have swendered the claim .of being the anti-big. government '

. er

I I

I . . . i

I '

". . . a , - '. . . . . .

.. - I . _ . . . . ' .. .

. . . .

.. . I .

I '

.

.

. . dozens of agencies have tens. of billions of tax dollars unaccounted for by the bureau heads;.' : , . . .. . .

. . ' . . ... ' . .

'. ,party. They can win if they define A1 Gore Democrats as the enemies of continued prosperity.and,

I I " 1

. .

Q-4

a Pd

I '

I .

I

Gephardt and Daschle will continuously ratchet up their demands in any fiscal bidding war. This is as fbtile an exercise as Wiley Coyote trying to blow up the Road Runner. It never happens. We already see the White House and congressiondl Democrats becoming more intransigent in their demands with the weak-kneed Republicans.

Funding the left' wing's wish list of fkderal priorities is no way to persuade American workers that Republicans deserve to retain their jobs this November. When Republicans have won their most resounding victories - the 1980 and 1994 elections come to mind - the party ran on an unflinching anti-nanny state platform. It's true that after years of prosperity and rising incomes Americans have grown more ambivalent about big government. But ambivalence should not be confused with support. Right now congressional Republicans are behaving as if they will accept a budget deal with Bill Clinton at any price. But be warned: That cost may be an A1 Gore White Home and a Dick Gephardt speakership. That's far too high a price to pay.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

1

I I

' I i .. GRAPHIC: Illustration (color), NO CAPTION, By Kevin KrenecWLos Angeles Times Syndicate .

. I

. . . . . : I 1 . ! .

i . .

' . /

LOAD-DATE: September IO, 2000'

. ! 'i ,

f , .

! .

i . .

I LexisNexisTM Academic I+..k :I4 4'

I

e .

' ' Copyright 2000 ,..a,, News I World Comnuni$ations, Inc. TheWashingtonTimes . \ I \

* . \ . August I 8,2000, Friday, Final'.Edhion

' I

. .

. . SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A20 . . I LENGTH: 831 words

. . . .

. .

. I '

. .

, . 1 1 .

I ' HEADLINE: Grabbing for the gold. won by others lpn?

Ff BYLINE: Stephen Moore 03 I

BODY: ~1 After watching the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles; I was reminded of a famous quip by Mark '3 Twain: First get your facts straight, then you can distort them all you like.

e3 President Clinton took credit for a long wave of econoniic prosperity that began 10 yem.'before he was elected and for 1;; a balanced budget that he fought tooth and nail to prevent after Republicans took.control of Congress, To borrow a . .

I I I I I I I I I I

phrase from Joseph I. Lieberman: That's chutzpah. But if we undistort the economic faots, we find Mr. Clinton's story of the current prosperity parts company with the reality. . . '. .

The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that we are now in the 18th year of one long wave of prosperity. The expansion officially began in 1982 with the supply side policies of Ronald Reagan.

The centerpiece of these pro-growth policies was tax-rate reductions. But the then-controversial departure fkom Keynsian limits to growth orthodoxy included sound money, deregulation, reductions in trade barriers and creating peace p u g h victory in the Cold War. Michael Cox of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has found that over the past 200 months, since the Reagan prosperity began, the economy has been in recession just eight months, or just 4 percent of the time.

The bullish stock market began in. 1982, not in 1992. Then, the Dow Jones hit its nadir at 800. Even the most wild-eyed optimist would never have guessed that Reaganomics would lead to a Dow-Jones of 1 1,000 by 2000. .

The historical performance of the stock market provides other surprising revelations. Between 1993 and 2000 the Dow-Jones has soared f b m 3,200 to 11,000. But in the two years of the Clinton presidency when the Democrats controlled Congress, the Dow rose, by just 600 points, whereas in the nearly six years since the November 1994 elections the Dow has risen by more than 6,000 points. In other words, more than 92 percent of the increase in asset values occurred after voters repudiated Clintonomics in the landmark election of 1994.

..- .

8

The interest-rate story also throws a curve ball into Mr. Clinton's revisionist history. As the table shows, interest rates .

and inflation began their long-term tumble in the early 1980s. In 1980, mortgage-interest rates hit the oppressive level , of 20 percent, and the inflation rate rocketed to 1 1 percent. Since the early 1980s, inflation has fallen by roughly a half , a percent per'.year to the current 2 percent to 3 percent range. Three Americans were responsible for this monetary success story: Mr. Reagan, Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan.

. I., '

Nor is it true that Mr. Clinton's world-record tax increase in 1993 lowered interest rates, as the White House boasts. Actually, from 1993 through November 1994 (when Republicans won control of Congress), interest rates rose by 50

I

I

I I

. . I . . _ .

basis points.. . . .

. 1'.

. . . , .

. . . . . -

a It's pretty muGh the same story with the budget deficit. Afler'two years of Clintonornics, we were still issuing. $200'. ' ' : billion o f new debt every year. In4 994, the budget deficit awas.cratered-at.$203 billion, and, the:Congr&s!ongd Budget

Office predicted&at $200 billion deficits would afflict us well into the 21st century. After hvo'years, :Mr. Clinton's $500 billion tax increase failed'to balance the budget'-or evenreduce red ink by much. .'. . ,...'.i

What changed this gloomy fin'ancial outlook? The Republican' balanced-budget plan in 1995 played a 'big role. In. '

1995, Republicans forced Mr. Clinton to accept a baI&ce,+budget, despite info government shutdowns. The White House was forced to submit five budget plans until he grtidgingly proposed a balanced,budgei.'And&ose . . are "jut the facts, ma'am.'' : .

. .

.... - : . .

'.' . ' . .

. . . . . . . ' I

. . .

I

I I . . . . .

. . . . . .

-. . . . . . . .

, ' To be sure, Mr. Clinton has presided over what has arguably been'the most prosperous years m'this century. He .

' '

deserves some of the' credit for this astonishingly resilient expansion. Where his policies have .been most productive - for example, in promoting free-trade agreements, signing the Republican welfare reforms, cutting the capital gains tax

followed the economically liberating path laid out by Mr. Reagan. His most dimwitted economic ideas - Hilliry 'V and allowing Mr. Greenspan to smother the last remnants of inflation in the financial system -.he has sensible

O3 Rodham Clinton's health care plan and Robert Reich's fiscal stimulus plan in 3 993 -, were mercifilly killed by rn ph Congress. That has surely been a big part of the secret of Mr. Clinton's success: being saved fiom himself. I , 1

I I a-4

'l' the Clinton-Gore policies have created peace, prosperity and trillion dollar surpluses, Al Gore will be the next a president no matter how charismaticaUy challenged he is.

But Republicans better shake off their overconfidence. If American voters go to the polls in November believin

P h f-4 I '

I

It's the Reagan economy stupid. The Bush team better start reminding voters of that reality, or theyre going tb be unemployed in a'few months. I

I

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and an adjunct fellow at the Cat0 Institute.

GRAPHIC: Chart, WHO SHOULD GET CREDIT FOR THE ECONOMY?, By The Washington Times . '

. . . . .

, . .. . . LOAD-DATE: August 18,2000

. . . .

. .

, - .

. . I

I

I

1 . I

I

I

I

' . : Qm . . . Lexk,PJexisTM Academic

I .

. ' . Copyright 2OOO-Neds World Communications,, Inc. The Washington Times . \ '

August 02,2000, Wednesday, Final Editien ' , \ . .

.' SECTION: PART . . A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1.8 . .

LENGTH: 629 words

HEADLINE: Whatever happened to Forbes? qr $0 f'*l BYLINE: Lawrence Kudlow/ Stephen Moore

''

I

. . \ *

I

I

'F:r Back in March, not long after he dropped out of the Republican prirnkes for president, Steve Forbes met with George qr W. Bush. Mr. Forbes offered to help Mr. Bush in any and every way possible. Mr. Forbes and his conservative G3 ,,,,% supporters helped squash Arizona Sen. John McCain's insurrection and secure the nomination for Mr: Bush. So why N have the Bush people frozen Mr. Forbes out of the Republican National Convention and out of the campaign team?

Ever since the McCain threat ended, the Bush canipaign has totally ignored Mr. Forbes.'Mr. Forbes's gracious offer to help has never even been acknowledged. This is a mistake. Mr. Forbes is one of the great assets of the Republican Party. He is the most articulate spokesman for the economic-growth agenda in the conservative movement. He has a widespread foIlowing among the investor class, the Internet-wired population, and large and small business leaders. Yet he will be nowhere to be seen at the convention in Philadelphia - except for a Club for Growth event that he will speak at on the last day.

By locking out Mr. Forbes - a slap in the face to those of us who supported him in the primaries -the Bush people, especidly their economic advisers, are exercising bad judgment. How can Elizabeth Dole be asked to speak at the convention, but not Mr. Forbes? Are the Bush people embarrassed by Mr. Forbes and his supportem? Are I we liabilities? That wasn't the attitude of the Bush people back in March and April.

Mr. Forbes deserves a leading role at the convention and in the Bush campaign. He deserves it because - although he lost badly to Mr. Bush in the primaries - it was Mr. Forbes, more than any other candidate in both 1996 and 2000, who thrust the pro-growth agenda on a Republican Party that was still in the grasp of the Bob Dole austerity wing of the party. Mr. Forbes was the political godfather of flat-tax cuts, of private accounts for Social Security, of Medical Savings Accounts, of educational choice for parents.

Mr. Forbes is a national spokesmen for fiee trade and a strong dollar. Mr. Forbes has the capacity to rally the Reagan supply-side wing of the party in a way that no other Republican can. Mr. Bush smartly picked Richard B. Cheney as his running mate Mr.. Cheney is second to none in his knowledge of foreign policy and national-security issues. Mr. Forbes is second to none on the prosperity issues. He's head and shoulders above anyone that M. Bush has working

.

- -

I

I II

'

for him now on the economy. Mr. Bush needs Mr. Forbes's counsel and advice. I

b

Mr. Bush must reach out to Mr. Forbes. Why not announce that Mr. Forbes will be the chainman of his economic team? Or make it known that he could be the Treasury secretary or head of his National Economics Commission (that Robert Rubin headed in Clinton's fust tern). This would electrify and unite the party at what is shaping up to be an otherwise business-as-usual four days m Philadelphia. Mr. Forbes is also the culturally conservative, fkee-trade, pro-growth antidote to Buchananism. But if the Bush campaign continues to fkeze out Mr. Forbes, then his Reaganite

I

I I

... . . i .

. . : . . . . .

.. . supporters might jus t sit on their hands during the upcoming canipaign. ,' ' , . . I . I . .

' This week the Republican. theme in. Philadelphiah unity. The,.party is advertising'itself 'as "a big tent'9hat ,fits all 'the .

rival factions together. .. Mr. .. Bush has even embraced his main primary rival, Mr. McCain;Swely this big terfit should be big enough to fit Forbes and his supply-side followers.

Steve F.orbes is ajgeat resource. Mr. Bush should put him to work -both the White House.

. . . .

. _ . .

. . . . . . . . .. ' I

. . .

this campaign,'and especially when he is in .. . . . I . . . .

. . bo. I I .

I . . . .

. . ._ . . ' . '.

'. *I' . . "r,;

Lawrence Kudlow is chief economist at ING Barings and stephen Moore is president of Club forGrowth. . . .

GRAPHIC: Illustration, Steve Forbes, By Wright ' . . . .

. . i . I ~3 LOAD-DATE: August 2,2000

v . ' ... .

. . . . . . . .

, . . .

' ... . , , : . . : 1

I

. *

I . . ' , ' . . . I 1

, . . ? . ' . .

. !i

. .

. .

. . .

I

I

. . .

e

. . . . ..

. . .

I

I

-1 '

. .

Lexis NexisTM Academic

I .

p%I+!,+ F

I .

Copyright 2000 News World Communications, Inc. 'l%eWashingtonTimes ' \ 1

July 20,2000, Thursday, Final Edition. . . I . \ .

I

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A1 8

LENGTH: 8 16 'words I

' HEADLINE: Worm in the education apple ... I .

Ph

. .

. .

. 02 BYLINE:'Stephen Moore. '

. .

~4 There is an old joke about teachers that goes like this: What are the three best reasons for becoming a teacher? June, ''r July and August. '

er '' Lately there has been a massive propaganda campaign about the inferior pay that teachers receive for their Ph pd nine-month-a-year jobs. Earlier this month the National Education Association (NEA) held its national convention in

Chicago where the union publicized a study indicating that teachers are paid $30,000 a year less than computer engineers and other professionals. Robert Reich recently moaned in his National Public Radio editorial that we are never going to get better schools until we start paying teachers more. And many fast-growing communities complain there is a severe shortage of competent teachers. The message is: If parents want school quality, they are going to have to pony up for it.

.

If only the solution to better schools were just that simple. It is not. Most public school teachers are not paid less a market wage, but more. There is a competitive marketplace for teachers and it is called the private school system.

school &unterp&s earn. In the Chicago area, Catholic school teachers are sometimes paid only half what the public school te.achers earn. Yet, every objective testing measure on student performance indicates that private school teachers do a better job than public school teachers. Ahh, but the public school teachers complain the comparison is unfair. Private schools have other advantages, including the fact they can impose discipline, they can expel problem kids, and they have parents who are more engaged. True enough, but this only reinforces the point that teacher pay is mostly irrelevant when it comes to improving schools; it's these other factors that are critical to academic excellke.

Even if we examine just the performance of the public schools across the states, we find teacher pay is totally unrelated to student performance.

And guess what? Private school teachers are generally paid about 30 percent less - yes, less - than what their public .- -

* North Dakota ranks 44th in per pupil expenditures, 49th in teacher salaries, and .in the bottom ten of every measure of spending. But it ranks in the top five in almost all measures of student performance.

'

I

I * South Dakota ranks dead last teacher salaries. It rariks third in SAT scores.

* New Jersey spends twice what Utah does on schools and yet New Jersey d s in the bottom 12 in test scores and dropout rates among the states, while Utah ranks in the top five in these achievement categories.

-The problem with our schools is not teacher pay, it's the heavy hand of the unions. Today there are more than 4 million unionized teachers, 2.5 million of whom are members of the NEA. In 1960, only 20 percent of teachers were

.

I

. . I

e

a .

. .

I

I

I

I 1 . ' . .

. :

. I' ' . m. . .. . .

I . I . .. .

unionized .- xiow 80 percent are. Back thenpublic schoolsworked. Today a .lot dqn't. . .

I

:Nearly eyery meaningful school refoiin measure has been rejected over.the years by the unions:.teacher-competency; testing, true pay for perfonnance, the abolition of tenure, vouchers, tuition tax credits, allovhng.-proffessionah in other occupations to teach part time, and other promising experiments. .Because 'of the job-for-life laws in. most states, Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform reports that '!in New York it can cost 'up.'to~:%ZOO,OOO to' dismiss a . '

teacher who is incompetent." 8

'

' .

'

. . . . . . . . .. . 1 .

. . . , . . . .

1 . . . . C . l . , l .

. . . . . i .

Ironically, at the same time'the teachers are complaining,+&out being,wodfully underpaid, they.-somehow.found the

, candidates in November. (Helping the Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives is a.top NEA. . ,

discretionary income to afford to raise their uuiion dues thiiIyear so they can r&se more moneyto'defkat .Republican, ' I: . . I 1 -

. i i I priority.) The NEA collects more than $250 million .a. year in dues. fmm'its "underpaid" clients.:,Big chunks of this. -'

' money is diverted to promoting political causes - including abortion.rights, gum control, national health care, and racial' ' , I ' .

quotas - many of which have little to do with education. In August the teachers unions are expected to send more qr delegates to the Democratic Convention than any ofher special interest group. What makes this union especially ct3 insidious is that it is willing to hold OUT nation's 6-year-olds political hostage to achieve its self-serving agenda of

higherpay. P k

More money for teachers won% buy better schools. What it will buy is more NEA funding for political causes, ' :; including opposition to parental choice reforms that would actually mean more competition azid better schools. Lo I wonder Forbes Magazine once described the teachers unions as ''the worm in the pducation apple." Until parents have

total control over where they send their kids to school, and who teaches them, teacher pay raises simply further ' entrench a system that is failing our children.

1 ,

I .

- . I

.: . . .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club .for Growth. ' '

GRAPHIC: Cartoon, NO CAPTION, By Asay/Coiorado Springs Gazette; Telegraph (Creator's Syndicate Inc. 2000) . .

. . . LOAD-DATE: . . July 20,2000 . . r . -

. .

. .

. .

, !. , I . . . .

,

I

I -1 .

. . , - 4Retur1-1 to FIJI~

Copyright 2000..Mews 'World Communications, Inc. The WashingtonTimes . . .

: ; , \ . '

. . . June 26,2000, Monday,'Final Edition ',

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 . . . . 1

LENGTH: 1025 words

\ ' .

. ' 8 8 . . '

. .

. I . rh HEADLINE: Defeating ciass warfare

p$ BODY:

,.I

v @>BYLINE: Stephen Moore l-4

4

I

I

i f

i I rr 1 think it's so irritating that once I die, 55 percent of my money goes to the United States Government.

0 - Oprah Winfrey i m I 1

I - 1 I

,v

June 9 witnessed one of the most stunning votes on the House floor in many years. The U.S. House of Representatives voted to phase out the death tax. Not to trim it; but to stick a stake through the heart of this destroyer of wealth and family legacies.

The death tax, of course, has long been beloved by the class warfare lobby on the left as Washington's ultimate income redistribution tool. Only the rich pay the death tax,'they insist. Wall Street Journal colunnist A1 Hunt moaned last week that this is a tax that hits "only the sons and daughters of the elite-never the working class." In predictable fashion, liberal think tanks including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities protested that the richest 1 percent of American families would receive at least three-quarters of the benefit. David Broder of The Washington Post sneered: "Congrqssional Republicans structure a $50 billion bonanza to the heirs of Bill Gates and other newly minted millionaires. At the same time, they block modest workplace reforms, delay an increase in the minimum wage, and drag their feet on a patient bill of rights." And that was one of the tamer outbursts.

'

I

1

1 I

I Yet despite the indignation, the left was not just defeated on this issue. They were trounced. The bill passed

1 grave of Americans and forces the family divestiture of farms and businesses.

I demonstrates this is not just the moral thing to do; it is the politically popular thing to do.

How can this be? After all, we have been told for the better part o f the past 18 months by pollsters and pundits I that Americans don't want tax cuts. Answer: the pundits were wrong. What is even more discombobulating to,

1 But the class warfare argument fell flat on its face. Even several liberal Democrats like Hawaii's Rep. Neil f Abercrombie, supported the repeal. Mr. Abercrombie explained his vote by noting: "I'm hearing more

complaints about the death tax from my constituents than I did on the China trade vote.'' Stop the presses. Joe i I * i. Lunch-bucket wants the death tax ended.

.i $

i

with unanimous Republican support - not a single liberal Northeast Republican bolted. Even more astounding, 65 Democrats voted Aye. The House now has a veto-proof majority to terminate a 75-year-old tax that robs the

1 t I

1

The Senate should now follow the House's lead. The momentum is with the tax slayers. The vote in the House

I

the Washington pinheads is how Joe Sixpack could support "tax breaks for the rich." I

a

1 1 +.

I

I ,

. .

. .

. .

. .

Again, 'the question is wby? 'I think I can'-explain the a'nswer. Several years' ago-I sat in 'on a focus group. , ' meeting on thq deatb tax:A bout 25 worlung-class Americans - 'these were anything but rich fat cats - were. ' as,ked to..express tbeir.views on this issue. To my simazement, about 3jn 4 said they believed'the death tax'was

'

q . ..

. . . . .' . .

. - . . .

. . . . . . . ..

. .

. .

, .. . upfair. : I

Even when it was explaiued to these workers again, and again t'!t very few.of4he people in'fhat ,room would . '

ever pay the death tax themselves, they reiterated even more forcefully that it's not ,a fair'tax, regardless of who pays it. These,Americans instinctively understood'?hat,pvhen Bill Gal&, or Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan die,with 'their billions of dollars of assets, tbat wealth#mbvd sa~iags'already~ has been taxed. Up to.half of it was' . .

taxed whed it was earned. Stop the injustice of taxing if'twice, was the retort of these'fair-min'ded Americans. I

I . . . .

As you can imagine, this was music to my ears. Teachers and construction workers and computer engineers can grasp a concept -double taxation - that Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle are hopelessly uneducable on.

I discovered at this meeting that Americans hate the death tax for another more deeply ingrained reason.'Most a 0 3 voters just don't have that reflexive hatred for the rich and the successful tbat the class warriors do; Meution

cJ (Whyelse would the book "The Millionaire Next Door". be such a mega-seller?) B*s.

'

, Pd' . . One thing Americans love about America is that this is the globe's .one true meritocracy. Yes, Americans are' compassionate (here George W. Bush is right on the mark). They w k t a system that doesn't leave people behind. They are absolutely insistent about a safety net. But they innately disapprove of a tax system that erases the rewards of success, virtue and bard work. They reject the income redistributionist mindset that a ,

bigger slice of the pie for Bill Gates means a smaller slice for themselves. They disapprove of the death tax, I

strangely enough, because they think it is by its very design and intent, un-American.

And here we have, wonderfully, the fairness issue turned right on its head. What Rep. Dick Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, no doubt views as the fairest tax of all is viewed by his constituents as the most immoral tax.

One last point. Yes, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is right that based on current wealth holdings, more than 90 percent of Americans would never be impaeted by the death tax. But as more and more Americans become owners and shareholders, the tax will start to bite even modestly successful ranchers, farmers, businessmen and investors. The concept that eludes the class warfare crowd is that Americans are dreamers and achievers. Most Americans think they themselves could be as rich as Oprah. This is the very essence of the Ameircan dream. They aspire to a level of affluence that only in America can ordinary people achieve.

And when their sbip comes in, these ordinary Americans shudder at the idea that half of it'is going to be snatched away by their friends at the Internal Revenue Service.

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

GRAPHIC: Illustration, NO CAPTION, By Bob Newman/Los Angeles Times Syndicate

. . . LOAD-DATE: June 26,2000

1

. .

. ..

C

' . !

, . I

I

I

I

. .

I

I

:.-. . .

4Retw-n tcr Full I

' . 1 . . . . .: . . .

LexisNexis'". Academic

Copyright 2000 News World Communi~ations, Inc. . .'

. . pM+!IJ 4'

#*The Washington Times '

May 10,2000, Wednesday, Final Editibn .

\ I . .

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A17 ' I

. .

LENGTH: 1245 words I

. HEADLINE: Bold'deal for Social Security .I.. .

PnlJ

On BYLINE: Stephen Moore . w

' h

I

I

, :

- .

.'' BODY: . .

PI Score one for George W. Bush. ' .

. .

\**

I

q' %r On Monday the Texas governor took a major step forward in rallying the support of economic conservatives across the C3 country with his bold proposal to partially privatize the Social Security system. by announcing his plan to allow b*c. workers to place a portion of payroll tax dollars in privately owned investment accounts, Mr. Bush also starkly

differentiated himself fiom Vice President A1 Gore, who advocates no changes to the current system. On this crucial

I '

I

I

I I

1

I I I I I I

I

issue of pension reform, it is now George W. Bush who is boldly attempting to design a'modern 21st century retirement system, while Mr. Gore is tied to preserving a fmancially wobbly program that was originally designed back in the 1930s by Franklin Roosevelt.

As impressive as Mr. Bush's privatization proposal was, the governor's skillful and articulate defense of it in the wake of predictable liberal media criticism. This is ultimately an issue about who should control workers' retirement dollars. The paternalist A1 Gore says it should be the government. Mr. Bush rightly favors trusting workers to make wise decisions with their own money. And he is right on message here. The winner of this crucial election will be the candidate who reaches out to the burgeoning new investor class/ internet savvy voters - which includes 80 million to 100 million Americans today. With more than half of all workers now owning stocks, Americans are hlly capable of making their own financial decisions. It is highly insulting to our intelligence when A1 Gore patronizingly pats us on the head and tells us we are not capable of making these decisions for ourselves.

The Democratic establishment refuses to acknowledge that the pay-as-you-go funding of Social Security will lead to fmancial turmoil within the next 20 years if innovative changes are not made today. The long-term unfunded liability of Social Security is a Mount Everest-sized $5 trillion to $1 0 trillion of red ink, a much larger financial black hole than even the national debt. If workers were permitted to place at least a portion of the 15 percent payroll tax into Wl-type accounts, that they personally own, they could tap into the magical power of compound interest - which Albert Einstein once labeled "the most powerful force in the universe." My strong preference would be to move toward a complete and immediate privatization of the whole system, not a partial plan. Nonetheless, George W. Bush deserves a chorus of applause fiom conservatives for being the frrst-ever presidential nominee of the two major parties to call for liberating Baby Boomers and Generation X workers fkom a system that robs them of their financial fbture.

The rate of return on Social Security these days is about 2 percent per year. Think about that fiom an investment standpoint. If your bank, mutual fund or investment adviser were earning just 2 percent a year on your savings, you would no doubt fire them in a nanosecond for gross incompetence. So why do we tolerate that kind of return fkom Social Security? If a middle-age worker - man or woman -younger than 30 were permitted to invest his or her payroll tax dollars in a safe, diversified mutual fbnd account, and that account earned 6 percent per year, which is below the

--

1

I

*

.

. . I I

I . !

1'

historical average fbr the financial marketsS-the worker would have inore . age of 65. That nest egg. would pay a monthly annuity payment, not 2, not 3, but 4 times higher than the benefit .,

- . : : . . .

q . . . . . - .

I :promised I..- from Social Security. , . . .

Mr. Bush seems to have a keen eye for the politics of this issue. Yoieig voters have deep skepticism about a retirement program that 'sends their dollars to Washington for supposed safekeeping. A Cat0 Institute, survey found last year that 18- to 30-year-olds illink it is more likely they will see'a UFO (43 percent) than a Social Security check (28 percent) during their lifetime. The idea of being able to personally invest some or all of these dollars is.obvlously a.highly

privatization. ,. .

' Most of MI-. Gore's response to the Bush plan was characteristically feeble; untruthful and a ,further indication of a a -. 1 shallow mind at work. For example, the vice president argued that the poor, minorities and..wornen would suffer. That . .

attractive option for this Internet generation. Among the @her-40 age .grdup about two-thirds strongly . . support . . . il, . .

I I . .

. ' .

is dead wrong. Studies by the Cat0 Institute have proven it is black Americans - particularly black men - who get the P4 &r7 worst rate of return from Social Security of any group. Black American males have much lower life expectancies - 66

on average - than white men and women. This means that black men often die right at the time they would -be,eligible FJ to receive the benefits they spent a lifetime paying for. Under a privatized plan, they could leave their retirement .

savings to their spouses and children.

:; The Bush program would also'empower millions of working-class Americans to become ownas of stocks and Jnds

I ,

-1

I

I

I

I i

I I'

I L;

I

: 6 for the first time in their lives. They would, in short, move out of the dependency class and into the shareholder &lass. bti, Ownership is the fastest way to get rich in America. Social Security taxes are so high today that many working .

- J% families don't have after-tax dollars to invest after paying the payroll tax. Working women, by the way, with a husband I ' who works, get the worst deal of all from Social Security.

Mr. Gore charges that privatization would h& the economy. This is the most absurd allegation of all. A recent study by economist Martin Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Ecoqomic Research calculates that the gains to the American economy from privatizing Social Security would be in the trillions of dollars. When other nations, such & Chile, have moved toward private Social Security systems, their economies flourished, their savings rates soared, and worker incomes rose rapidly. . r

I

It is also noteworthy that many leading Democrats, including Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, have wholeheartedly em braced the privatization option. Mr. Kerrey says Democrats who oppose this form of worker capitalism are patronizing the poor "whose interests our party is supposed to represent." Are you listening A? The Democratic Leadership Council has also endorsed at least a partial privatization of Social Security. So just how risky and controversial can this plan be?

George W. Bush has shown an annoying tendency at times to sound more like a Clinton Democrat than a Reagan Republican, as evidenced by his litany of new spending initiatives unveiled in recent months. I have been as critical of Mr. Bush as anyone for this. But on the two issues that perhaps matter most to the future economic well-being of our nation, taxes and Social Security, Mr. Bush has admirably defined himself as a bold, original thinker. A1 Gore meanwhile remains a captive of a status quo mindset. When it comes to retirement income and budget surpluses, Mr. Gore's inclination is to trust government with the money, Mr. Bush's is to trust us with our own money.

I

Mr. Gore says the Social Security issue now is "one of the starkest differences of opinion in this campaign." For once, he is telling the truth. Mr. Bush wants a new deal for Social Security. Mr. Gore would continue with the c m t rotten deal. Yes, a stark difference indeed.

. .

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

GRAPHIC: Illustration, NO CAPTION, By Bob Neuman/Los Angeles Syndicate

LOAD-DATE: May 10,2000

. '

1

_, . . I

.: . . .

, . ' . I \ . .. axarch 08,2000, Wednesday,. Final mdibon

. .

LexisNexisTM Academic . . I

. . . . 14i..w.!IJ 4

I .

'Copyright 20,0Q,.N~ws World CoRunicationh , Inp ' . . I '

. .

' 8 ,. . .

. .

'; \ * ' _.. m " '; ,:,_.

rvheWashmgtonTimes . \

1 . .

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTnnY :;Pg .AI 6 ' .

LENGTH: 839 words . . . .

. .

. . . .

. . . :

. . . . .

. . # I , . . . . P J ~ HEADLWnxm Desperaiely seeking an agenda:.. LJY . . I ' '

. . a BYLINE: Stephen Moore' , a . rv

I

BODY: n% P I lcr How many times do Republicans have to relearn the lesson that when they abandon their consetahGelliliertanah bloc SY of voters they do not expand their base, that it evaporates? The political grave yard is full of contemporun examples. 0 Gerald Ford. George Bush. Bob Dole. The Republicans in Congress in 1998. All remmeated from the tt cuttmfl1lniited

IN government theme of the GOP and got punished at the polls.

I

I

I' 1 '

I . I I I. I

Undeterred by history, Republican campaign strategists want to dust off this play book one more time for Campaign 2000. It trIl almost assuredly pZld the same tunappy returns .

I recently asked a leading Republican consultant what the ovegdirig themes wlll likely be for thid November J congressional elections. What will %ire impassoned voters to the polls?The answer :money and moderation Money : Raise as much of it as possible. Moderation: Run to the 50-yard line on the political playing field and camp out there.

The Republicans' uninspiring "to do" list reflects Es' attitude Senate Republihs now have the follownig pnkfies for 2002- increasing the 1997 budget caps, spending a lot more on education, expanding Medicare coverage, retiring - the national debt., "saving Social Security" and raising the minimum wage. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore could and should sue the GOP for plagiarism. Meanwhile, tax reform, Social Security privatizatibn, elimination of federal programs have all been elbowed off the negotiating table.

JoD McC& s' improbable upsets of George W Bush ui some early pnmmes - c p ~ g essentially a Eemocrabc message - is drqueshonably one Viirlhg force beluhd thik new tactik of m f i g nike wth big government. Mr. McCain's capacity to arYract'independen% minded" Perotid' vo- and even some conservafwe Democratq has Republican leaders salivating as if they were fiat boys watching scantily clad Jennifer Lopez saunter onto the stage duringtheGrMys .

Seemingly evegy talkng head in Washgton agrees that voters- even RepubIican voters- don't want tax cuts and don't w a n a ' nsky schemes for Sdcial S e c h v Foher Clmton Democratx pblitical guru Paul Begala recently 'dismissed tax cuts as "so 1980s-ish." And so it is that to hold on to the House and Senate, the Republican brain trust - and Wor has it that there really is one - has decreed that Reagan-like tax cuts are out. EiseanYower style debt 'drement rB 1x1 '

I

I

I 1

Not so fast. A just-released Oogby poll of 1 PO0 registered Republican voters sugdrests that nhsis a dingbat strateh The poll, sponsored by the ,Club for &OAR ,should be read and mernonied by e v ~ aspinng Repuljhcan office seeker. The results. veri@ the lessons of recent history: If the GOP de-emphasizes its core cluster of growth issues, its conservative base will unhe out and stay home One g/uesbon asked

b

. I

I

I . !

' . _ m. . .

How likely would you be to tun1 out to voteh the 2000 elections if the Republican.congressiona1 candidate supported , * simplifying @e cuirentJRS tax system? . . , I

. . . .. ' .. . . . .

.

i

1 How likely would you be to turn out to vote in the 2000 elFctions if the Republican.congressional&ndidates supported allowing workers to place some or all of theirt&iyroll tax dollks in!o

1 , 'Two-thirds said they 'would be "very likely" to hun'out to cote for the candidate. Only 7 percent .said'"not likely.''

' I qr years of,Republican control 'of Congress has. the idea.of allowing workers to place at least a portion of payroll tax b-, dollars into personal IRAs not even come up for a vote? Someone needs to knock Trent Lett and Denny Hastert's 03 heads together and remind them that a Social Security.'*lock-box'' is a clever gimmick, but is no substitute-for a

1 privately owned; hlly h d e d retirement system. Similarly, eliminating the maniage penalty'is a nice start, but it '

Eighty-bo percent responded very likely; 1 1' percent somewhat likely. Only 3 percent said-notlikely.. . ' '

' ' '

: . ._ . . .

. . ' , . . . A second question asked: I .. . * . . .

. .

individual. retirement . . account? . . . . . '; . .

. . .

. .

Here's the problem. When is the last time Republicans spoke-about the flat tax? The national sales tax?' W h y after five' . .

' '

: ;

!. ' 1 - 1

I Fb doesn't make the tax code any less convoluted and it doesn't get the IRS out of our ,faces. . . . ,.... . Fd. v The 1998 elections were a debacle for Republicans primarily because after spending months &sting the bank 04 the .

budget for bloated highway bills and Clintonite social programs, dispirited conserirative and libertarian Republican plb voters had no compelling motivation to go to the polls. And so they didn't, The GOP actually lost the vote of

Americans with incomes of more than $75,000 a year. Predicted Republican gains vaporized and Republican . 1 1 I I I I I I I I I

I . majorities narrowed some more. 0

Given the widespread mood of voter contentment around the country, the ,GOP may not be able to win with its traditional pro-growth, anti-big government agenda. But the Club for Growth poll indicates they don't have a snowball's chance. in hell of winning without it.

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cat0 Institute and the presidentof the Club for Growth.

I

I

. . GRAPHIC: Cartoon, NO. CAPTION, By Schwadron . . .. .

. . LOAD-DATE: March 8,2000

:. I I

. .

. I

I

. .

. .

. . . .

Lexis N exisTM Academic p**.:14 4'

I .

Copyright 2000 News World Communications, Inc.

\ : "The Washington Times ' '

. . January 14,2000, Friday, Final Wlti L , '

I

SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A16 ' '

1 LENGTH: 974 words I

I.. I

. HEADLINE: Freedom'sassets . . . . I . . I '* BYLINE: Stephen Moore . I

. .

BODY: . .

. .

' I ' . .

8 a .

I . .

. ' I .

PI A recent report by the Commerce Department indicateg what many workers, investors and consumers already knew cr instinctively: the,American economy has been growing in this decade a lot faster than first thought. lq ' '> The upward revisionin economic growth also means Uncle Sam's share of the &tal economy is shrinking. This is ' '

b. despite much of the irresponsible spending enacted by President Clinton and the Republican Congress that'I and othm, I I. I I I' I I I I I I

have railed against for years.

In 1 99 1, federal spending as a share of GDP hit 23 percent. In 1999, it fell below 20 percent for the first time since 1974. Moreover, this year federal spending might fall below 19 percent of GDP, which will be the lowest level since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was launchedl in 1965.

Milton Friedman has reminded us over the years that 'Ithe true cost of government is how much it spends." Modem govemments can best be thought of as a toll imposed on private-sector wealth-creating activity. Over the past 15 years that charge at the federal to1 1 booth has fallen fiom almost 24 cents t o about 19 cents on the dollar (see chart).

This is hardly a call for retreating fiom the privatize and downsize government activities. There is StilLhuge progress to be made in restoring government to its constitutional and economically optimal size. A recent booklet by the Institute for Policy Innovation on the growth of government shows that back at the start of this century the federal toll was less than 5 cents on the dollar. By my calculations, the historical average federal share of the economy was about 8 percent to 10 percent. So despite the recent progress, the federal government is still twice as big as it should be.

Moreover, overall spending isn't falling at all. Over the past four years, the federal budget has expanded by more than $200 billion - during a time of peace and prosperity. Bill Clinton's last budget had more than $150 billion in new spending requests over five years. The Republicans have made a habit of late of spending more money than even Mr. Clinton has requested.

The major factor behind the govement's retreat is that the private economy has been surging over the past 18 years. It appears that Ronald Reagan, Arthur Laffer and Jack Kemp saw the future with more clarity than anyone else in Washington: the American miracle economy is outgrowing the budget, rendering it gradually more inconsequential over time. This is a phenomenon that CNBC economist Lawrence Kudlow has described as "growing the denominator." So even though the federal budget is now about 140 percent more obese than it was in 1982 when this .

4 '

I

'

record 18-year Reagan expansion (1982-99) began, the U.S. GDP has increased by an even more robust 185 percent.

With the right constellation of freedom and growth policies custom-designed for the high-tech, investor class age, the

-, . . . . . .

next president could very conceivably shrink the federal toll to between 10 cents and 15 erits on the dollar. Considering that the government toll charged in the still socialist or "third way" European economies falls in the 30 cents to 40 cents per dollar range, a 10 percent t d , 5 qercent federal burden in the United States would create for American workers and firms an insunnountable comparative advantage in the global economy. That giant sucking sound would be trillions of dollars of investment capital from every comer of the globe pouring over the borders into the United States.

'

I , , , I 1

\ \

+e To get government down to between 10 percent and 15 percent of GDP by 20 5 will require m est fiscal disciplinary measures to slow federal spending. We should imniediately,shut down the Commerce or Energy example. We should finally pull the United States out of failed and compt institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The private sector should t e e over activities like legal services for the poor, public broadcasting, space exploration, medical research, and making bank loans to small and minority-owned businesses,

Equally important, a prosperity agenda aimed at maintaining growth in the 3 percent to 4 percent range is imperative

partments, for

(1) to shrinking government's influence. Here Republicans in Congress need only plagiyize Steve Forbes' bold economic til playbook. Forbes proposals include: personalized accounts fqr Social Security, a postcard 17 percent flat tax, medical

savings accounts as an alternative to government-run health care, a U.S. policy of expanded fiee trade, school choice for all children, and an iron-clad commitment to keep the internet forever tax and regulation free. All these together i L!v

! P!4

I :! Skeptics will say we are simply living through a temporary pause in the relentlep growth of government. They may

I PJ

p..I would virtually guarantee accelerated growth.

cg ultimately be right. When Baby Boomers start signing up for Medicare and Social SecuritL in about a#deca.de, federal '& expenditures could easily double as a share of GDP. This makes it all the more imperative that we shrink government

now, and find private sector alternatives to socialism for senior citizens. I I

I' I E I. I I. I I I I

We are now living in an global era aptly described by Walter Wriston as "the twilight of sovereignty." Even Bill Clinton's own "new Democrat" budget envisions federal spending dwindling down to 18 percent of GDP within the next five years. If congressional Republicans get back tolpromoting a genuine platform of fieedom and limited government, we can even do better than that.

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cat0 Institute and president of the Club for Growth.

GOVERNMENTIN RETREAT

Federal Spading .as share'of Gross Domestic Product. . .

2000 0 19.3% . . I

1999 - 19.5%

. .

1998-20% .

1997 - 20% .

1996-20.5% '

1995 - 21% 1

'1994 - 21.5%

1993 - 22%

. . . .

. .

I

I ' .

., .

I . .

i

a

. I'

. . .I

I

1992 - 22.5% I

I I

.. ._ .

iggi -.230/0'

GRAPHIC: Chart, GOVERNMENT IN

. . ! : .

c

. I RETREAT, By The Washington Times I

LOAD-DATE: January 14,2000

. .

. . I

. .

... . . I

I

I

I

I